Re: 2.6.0 performance problems

[Thomas Molina]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Roger Luethi wrote:

> I'm not sure how to classify the bk export. It may be the qsbench type
> or something new. If it is the former, then 2.5.39 performs a lot worse
> than 2.5.38 (and 2.6.0, for that matter).
> 
> It would also be interesting to see the numbers for 2.5.27: That's when
> physical scanning was introduced -- IMO that performance should be the
> minimal goal for 2.6.


It seems to me that the bk export test is a measure of memory pressure and 
io performance.  On my good system with plenty of resources I see very 
little difference between 2.4 and 2.6.  On my laptop with a slower 
processor, less memory, and a slower hard drive I get dramatic 
differences, depending on workload.  

I'm not sure what to think of the bk export test to tell you the truth.  
i've noticed for some time that 2.6 seemed to perform worse than 2.4.  It 
was a simple "real world" test that I could use to gather real performance 
data.  

If I am understanding you, you would like data on 2.5.27, 2.5.38, and 
2.5.39.  I'll do it if it will help something.  I'll look at it in the 
next couple of days.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/