> > Notice how 2.1.114 spends much more time in the kernel (6 times more
> > than 2.0.33). Overall it is 3 times slower.
Thats the dcache I suspect. Its probably a win for most uses however.
You can use the kernel profiling to find out. Also remember to compare
non SMP kernels with non SMP kernels
> > If I'm right, this implies that 2.1.114 is very bad for proxy and/or
> > news servers, who both operate on lots of files, creating/deleting
> > them at fast rate.
Proxies spend most of their time looking up files. I wouldnt expect that
to be this worst case you report
> > Anybody care to shed some light on this?
Can you see if 2.1.115ac1 is any better on this benchmark on your box
---------Case 2----------
> Having a 486 and not the fastest disk in the world I have noticed it
> very
> easily. It took over 1 hours to download 232 files at a modem speed
> of 28800. The same thing takes less than a fourth of that with kernel
> 34. I was using kernel 113 not 114 but they're quite close.
> Is it some debug code that is slowing the whole thing down or some
> Microsoft programmer got on board?
Do you have SMP enabled, does it have 16450 UARTS, do you have hdparm -u1 set
[Im guessing you are seeing serial overruns]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html