Re: [Patch] shm bug introduced with pagecache in 2.3.11

Gerard Roudier (groudier@club-internet.fr)
Sat, 13 Nov 1999 18:49:10 +0100 (MET)


Hi Manfred,

Could it be possible for you to run benchmarks against O/Ses we have
access to the source code instead of binary-only available ones. This
would allow to learn a lot better from the differences. For example
FreeBSD is as simple as Redhat to install and a base system will consume
far less disk space than NT.

Basically I an not interested at all by your benchmarks for the reasons my
personnal box has only free O/Ses installed.

May-be you will reply me that Linux is mostly competing against NT
nowadays. Anyway, ignoring other free O/Ses seems to me scornfully
given the synergy that existed and still exists in some places.

Gérard.

On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, Manfred Spraul wrote:

> Alan Cox wrote:
> > So you benchmarked with a very slow I/O device.
> >
> > Linux FAT performance is slow. Try NTFS (or FAT) versus ext2. That would
> > be interesting.
>
> Ok, I switched to a Seagate ST34520N (7200 rpm, scsi2 narrow, 4.5 GB),
> and I added a new test: Linux-multi-thread vs Linux-multi-process. The
> results are as I expected:
>
> -Linux-multi-process is more or less on par with NT. The 20% difference
> could be the thread/process overhead.
> -Linux-multi-thread is sloww.
>
> 450000 pages test file, ext2 and NTFS, 128 MB ram, Sym810 controller,
> AMD K6/200
>
> # is the number of threads/processes which are running.
>
> # Linux-threads Linux-processes NT (threads)
> 1 51 51 60
> 16 51 67 96
> 64 50 73 105
> 128 48 75 107
>
> The modified source code is at
> http://colorfullife.com/~manfreds/pagein/pagein.cpp
>
> --
> Manfred

-
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.tux.org/lkml/