xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: performance degraded 2.4.8 -> 2.4.9?

To: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: performance degraded 2.4.8 -> 2.4.9?
From: Dan Yocum <yocum@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:04:27 -0600
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <3BF1A6F2.273B49C4@fnal.gov> <1005696924.21227.4.camel@UberGeek> <3BF27ACB.B744479A@fnal.gov> <1005752233.25611.2.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Steve Lord wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2001-11-14 at 08:08, Dan Yocum wrote:
> > Austin Gonyou wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know if you can, but I'd suggest using either 2.4.14 or 2.4.15
> > > when it's ready since the loopback bug will be fixed in that version.
> >
> >
> > Hm?  I guess I missed that one - got a link to a message on l-k that
> > 'splains it - I don't see anything in the XFS mailing list archives.
> >
> > I should note, I don't think the problem is with XFS since I see the same
> > performance degradation using 'dd' to the raw device, too.  But, I know you
> > guys touch the kernel code all over the place so maybe something...
> > somewhere else?
> >
> 
> Its a myth! We do not have changes all over the kernel, and we
> definitely do not have any changes in the block layer. The last
> change we had was a different lvm version from Linus, and even
> that is gone now.


Oops.  Ok.  I take it back...  I don't want to be blamed for spreading
folktales.  [Back in my box, back in my box...]

I'm doing my bonnie++ tests on 2.4.15pre4 at the moment and I'm seeing a
little better performance than 2.4.9 (for writes), but it's still not at the
2.4.5 level.  I'll let it run a few more iterations before I say what the
numbers are.

Dan

-- 
Dan Yocum
Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Fermilab  630.840.6509
yocum@xxxxxxxx, http://www.sdss.org
SDSS.  Mapping the Universe.


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