On Tue, 5 Feb 2002 rwhron@earthlink.net wrote:
> I am curious if the small followup patch to 2.5.3-dj1 makes radix-tree
> more like 2.4.17-ratpagecache. (overall, it seems that radix-tree did
> better in I/O without the small followup patch).
It would be useful if you also did dbench tests with a much
lower amount of dbench processes.
Once you get over 'dbench 16' or so the whole thing basically
becomes an excercise in how well the system can trigger task
starvation in get_request_wait.
I can recommend 'dbench 1' 'dbench 4' 'dbench 16' ;)
> dbench 64 processes
> 2.5.3-dj1rat ************************** 13.1 MB/sec
> 2.5.3-dj1 ********************** 11.1 MB/sec
> 2.5.3-dj1rat2 ********************** 11.1 MB/sec
>
> dbench 192 processes
> 2.5.3-dj1rat ************* 6.8 MB/sec
> 2.5.3-dj1rat2 ************* 6.7 MB/sec
> 2.5.3-dj1 ************* 6.6 MB/sec
Rik
--
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
-- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:00:48 EST