> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> >Could you try again with this my patch I developed now applyed ;->? It
> >should perfectly avoid the extra syncing. Yowww!
>
> Does somebody other me is using it? I' d like to hear good reports...
>
> It' s working fine here since the last two days (it apply clean also
> against 2.1.123 btw).
>
> It improve the test program (and so every threaded program that make use
> of shared mmap) drammatically (from 30mbyte of IO every 5 sec forever to
> 0mbyte of IO all the time!!).
>
> Andrea[s] Arcangeli
>
> PS. I written the word `[patch]' in the subject to attract you, but the
> interesting patch really is in the my last email of this thread (I
> forget to write it the last time so...).
Hi Andrea,
Sorry for my late reply, I've been trying to get a machine to run 2.1.123
so I can do more than run my sample test program (which you did anyway and
we know is running fine). I've also been off the net for a good 12 hours
and now I'm getting bombarded with linux-kernel mail. :-)
For starters, I've been running 2.1.123 (unpatched) on the local news
server to see how well it can handle the load, and so far so good. I
expect to be able to test the patch in maybe a couple of days.. It would
be really great to have this problem fixed, as right now it takes 30-60
seconds for innd to fork and exec nnrpd when a new reader connects to the
server. And you can imagine how annoying that is for users. :-(
Thanks again, I'll let you know as soon as I have the server running with
your patch. Hopefully the results will be good. :)
Ion
--
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
than to open it and remove all doubt.
-
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/