> I sort of hoped it would be better in performance, not
> increasingly worse.
There were a lot of improvements during the 2.4.19-pre series on
several I/O benchmarks. Comparing 2.4.18 to 2.4.19 on a quad xeon.
Here are a few of the big changes (average of 5 runs):
200% improvement on reiserfs for dbench 192
125% improvement on ext3 for dbench 192
248% improvement on ext2 for dbench 192
40% improvement on reiserfs for dbench 64
30% improvement on ext3 for dbench 64
67% improvement on ext2 for dbench 64
30% improvement on ext2 for tiobench seq reads with threads >= 32
100% improvement on ext2 and reiserfs for tiobench seq writes with threads >= 32
300% drop in cpu usage on ext3 for tiobench seq reads
(latency and throughput also improved)
In most cases, average and max tiobench latency went down with 2.4.19.
Max sequential write latency with one thread on ext2 went up 1000% though.
imho, it's worthwhile to track and investigate regressions
and improvements.
More benchmarks and several pre's and rc's in between at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html
Small boxes are important too:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/k6-2-475.html
-- Randy Hron- 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 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:30 EST