Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Effect\s+of\s+kiobufs\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Effect\s+of\s+kiobufs\?\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. Effect of kiobufs? (score: 1): Author: ppetru@xxxxxxxxxx (Petru Paler); Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 13:13:36 +0200; What are the gains of using the "kio" mount options? Are kiobufs faster than buffer heads, or they just allow more efficient merging of requests? Thanks, -- Petru Paler, mailto:ppetru@xxxxxxxxxx htt; /archives/xfs/2001-03/msg00378.html (6,991 bytes)
2. Re: Effect of kiobufs? (score: 1): Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 12:31:18 +0100; The kiobufs allow efficient "merging" from the fs side, so that it can submit single large chunks of I/O. The gains can be pretty good, I know Steve Lord had some numbers on IDE and SCSI bh vs kiobuf; /archives/xfs/2001-03/msg00379.html (7,653 bytes)
3. Re: Effect of kiobufs? (score: 1): Author: dbl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Lounsberry); Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 10:54:37 -0600 (CST); Here is what I am seeing on the following system: Athlon 1GHZ Ultra2 LVD SCSI 10K RPM disk 256MB Memory To be sure, I ran it several times. I used a package called bonnie to get these numbers. - XFS; /archives/xfs/2001-03/msg00383.html (8,889 bytes)
4. Re: Effect of kiobufs? (score: 1): Author: "thomas graichen" <list-linux.sgi.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 23:26:27 +0200; always make shure to at least use a testfilesize (-s option of bonnie) twice as big as your main memory to avoid cache effects t -- thomas graichen <tgr@xxxxxxxxxxx> ... perfection is reached, not wh; /archives/xfs/2001-03/msg00385.html (8,418 bytes)
5. Re: Effect of kiobufs? (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:07:49 -0600; Hmm, not sure I have those numbers anymore Jens. The other point is that merging of kiobuf requests within the elevator has never been implemented. Kiobufs and xfs is a long story, but XFS comes fro; /archives/xfs/2001-03/msg00409.html (9,763 bytes)
6. Effect of kiobufs? (score: 1): Author: ppetru@xxxxxxxxxx (Petru Paler); Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 13:13:36 +0200; What are the gains of using the "kio" mount options? Are kiobufs faster than buffer heads, or they just allow more efficient merging of requests? Thanks, -- Petru Paler, mailto:ppetru@xxxxxxxxxx htt; /archives/xfs/2001-03/msg00911.html (6,991 bytes)
7. Re: Effect of kiobufs? (score: 1): Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 12:31:18 +0100; The kiobufs allow efficient "merging" from the fs side, so that it can submit single large chunks of I/O. The gains can be pretty good, I know Steve Lord had some numbers on IDE and SCSI bh vs kiobuf; /archives/xfs/2001-03/msg00912.html (7,653 bytes)
8. Re: Effect of kiobufs? (score: 1): Author: dbl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Lounsberry); Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 10:54:37 -0600 (CST); Here is what I am seeing on the following system: Athlon 1GHZ Ultra2 LVD SCSI 10K RPM disk 256MB Memory To be sure, I ran it several times. I used a package called bonnie to get these numbers. - XFS; /archives/xfs/2001-03/msg00916.html (8,889 bytes)
9. Re: Effect of kiobufs? (score: 1): Author: "thomas graichen" <list-linux.sgi.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 23:26:27 +0200; always make shure to at least use a testfilesize (-s option of bonnie) twice as big as your main memory to avoid cache effects t -- thomas graichen <tgr@xxxxxxxxxxx> ... perfection is reached, not wh; /archives/xfs/2001-03/msg00918.html (8,418 bytes)
10. Re: Effect of kiobufs? (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:07:49 -0600; Hmm, not sure I have those numbers anymore Jens. The other point is that merging of kiobuf requests within the elevator has never been implemented. Kiobufs and xfs is a long story, but XFS comes fro; /archives/xfs/2001-03/msg00942.html (9,763 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]