[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS and preemptive kernel patch

To: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS and preemptive kernel patch
From: Anuradha Ratnaweera <anuradha@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 10:27:10 +0600
Cc: Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.40.0111101125180.19538-100000@gusi.leathercollection.ph>; from jijo@leathercollection.ph on Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 11:28:58AM +0800
References: <20011110091124.A942@bee.lk> <Pine.LNX.4.40.0111101125180.19538-100000@gusi.leathercollection.ph>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 11:28:58AM +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 at 09:11, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> > How about using preemptive patch on a firewall, running tranparent
> > proxy (squid/iptables) and also a little bit of qos/fair queuing stuff
> > (includes XFS on software raid 1)?
> [...]
> So on a pure server (ie: one that is not used as a console/workstation at the
> same time) I wouldn't use the kernel preemption patch. On everything else, I
> would. :)

Notice that a "pure" server is very much different from a firewall/router.  A
firewall with a transparent proxy should be able to switch packets even when
loaded by other processes.

> > Will try it today and send some feedback.
> That'll be great. I'm interested in finding out how it actually performs
> on a "pure server". :)

This is not a pure server 8)

> I wonder: there is a component of preemption that is XFS-centric, and the XFS
> code is already preemptible. Would the XFS developers have authoritative
> information on how the performance of XFS varies with preemption enabled on
> an IO-bound system?

Do you mean XFS code can be preemptible at _kernel_ space?



Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.4.13)

To kick or not to kick...
        -- Somewhere on IRC, inspired by Shakespeare

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>