Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*lmdd\s+performance\s+results\s+XFS\s+vs\.\s+Ext2\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*lmdd\s+performance\s+results\s+XFS\s+vs\.\s+Ext2\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2 (score: 1): Author: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan <ananth@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 18:49:14 -0700; Results of write performance tests: -- Sequential write using lmdd, file size is ~209MB on a 2 CPU system with total memory of 64M. The experiment is run over varying write-size from 1K to 1024K, 3 t; /archives/xfs/2000-06/msg00058.html (11,664 bytes)
2. lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2 (score: 1): Author: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan <ananth@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:51:35 -0700; Results of write performance tests: -- Sequential write using lmdd, file size is ~209MB on a 2 CPU system with total memory of 64M. The experiment is run over varying write-size from 1K to 1024K, 3 t; /archives/xfs/2000-06/msg00059.html (11,747 bytes)
3. Re: lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2 (score: 1): Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:41:30 +0200; Please not that 2.3 itself has significant performance regressions for huge bulk writes (there were several threads on linux-kernel about that). Partly the still broken page cache balance is probably; /archives/xfs/2000-06/msg00066.html (8,662 bytes)
4. Re: lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2 (score: 1): Author: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan <ananth@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 01:57:34 -0700; Yep, I lurk in linux-mm to garner some of this news; but thanks for the heads up. No, the recent changes were to tune XFS itself rather than Linux VM. Hopefully all the recent tuning in 2.4.0+ will b; /archives/xfs/2000-06/msg00067.html (9,657 bytes)
5. Re: lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2 (score: 1): Author: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:48:46 -0300 (BRST); Definately. Following age-old Linux tradition I'm currently re-writing the VM subsystem at the end of the code freeze period, heavily counting on code beautification and tons of obviousness to make L; /archives/xfs/2000-06/msg00069.html (9,685 bytes)
6. Re: lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2 (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 11:28:09 -0500; Perhaps some expansion on what happens with XFS would be good here: 1. During a write call we create delayed allocate space for the write (presuming it does not exist already). This is cheap as we j; /archives/xfs/2000-06/msg00071.html (12,415 bytes)
7. Re: lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2 (score: 1): Author: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan <ananth@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:03:32 -0700; Rik, the allocate-on-flush may be a little tricky, esp. when triggered as part of memory pressure ... I'm assuming that its part of shrink_mmap() path that you're thinking? Perhaps similar to try_to_; /archives/xfs/2000-06/msg00072.html (9,648 bytes)
8. lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2 (score: 1): Author: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan <ananth@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 18:49:14 -0700; Results of write performance tests: -- Sequential write using lmdd, file size is ~209MB on a 2 CPU system with total memory of 64M. The experiment is run over varying write-size from 1K to 1024K, 3 t; /archives/xfs/2000-06/msg00281.html (11,664 bytes)
9. lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2 (score: 1): Author: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan <ananth@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:51:35 -0700; Results of write performance tests: -- Sequential write using lmdd, file size is ~209MB on a 2 CPU system with total memory of 64M. The experiment is run over varying write-size from 1K to 1024K, 3 t; /archives/xfs/2000-06/msg00282.html (11,747 bytes)
10. Re: lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2 (score: 1): Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:41:30 +0200; Please not that 2.3 itself has significant performance regressions for huge bulk writes (there were several threads on linux-kernel about that). Partly the still broken page cache balance is probably; /archives/xfs/2000-06/msg00289.html (8,662 bytes)
11. Re: lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2 (score: 1): Author: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan <ananth@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 01:57:34 -0700; Yep, I lurk in linux-mm to garner some of this news; but thanks for the heads up. No, the recent changes were to tune XFS itself rather than Linux VM. Hopefully all the recent tuning in 2.4.0+ will b; /archives/xfs/2000-06/msg00290.html (9,657 bytes)
12. Re: lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2 (score: 1): Author: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:48:46 -0300 (BRST); Definately. Following age-old Linux tradition I'm currently re-writing the VM subsystem at the end of the code freeze period, heavily counting on code beautification and tons of obviousness to make L; /archives/xfs/2000-06/msg00292.html (9,685 bytes)
13. Re: lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2 (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 11:28:09 -0500; Perhaps some expansion on what happens with XFS would be good here: 1. During a write call we create delayed allocate space for the write (presuming it does not exist already). This is cheap as we j; /archives/xfs/2000-06/msg00294.html (12,415 bytes)
14. Re: lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2 (score: 1): Author: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan <ananth@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:03:32 -0700; Rik, the allocate-on-flush may be a little tricky, esp. when triggered as part of memory pressure ... I'm assuming that its part of shrink_mmap() path that you're thinking? Perhaps similar to try_to_; /archives/xfs/2000-06/msg00295.html (9,648 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]