Linux v2.4.19-rc5
Quoted 2 lines
I sort of hoped it would be better in performance, not increasingly worse.
There were a lot of improvements during the 2.4.19-pre series on several I/O benchmarks. Comparing 2.4.18 to 2.4.19 on a quad xeon. Here are a few of the big changes (average of 5 runs):
200% improvement on reiserfs for dbench 192
125% improvement on ext3 for dbench 192
248% improvement on ext2 for dbench 192
40% improvement on reiserfs for dbench 64 30% improvement on ext3 for dbench 64 67% improvement on ext2 for dbench 64
30% improvement on ext2 for tiobench seq reads with threads >= 32
100% improvement on ext2 and reiserfs for tiobench seq writes with threads >= 32 300% drop in cpu usage on ext3 for tiobench seq reads
(latency and throughput also improved)
In most cases, average and max tiobench latency went down with 2.4.19. Max sequential write latency with one thread on ext2 went up 1000% though.
imho, it's worthwhile to track and investigate regressions and improvements.
More benchmarks and several pre's and rc's in between at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html
Small boxes are important too:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/k6-2-475.html
Signature · 1 line
Randy Hron
Quoted 6 lines · On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 2 lines
I sort of hoped it would be better in performance, not increasingly worse.
There were a lot of improvements during the 2.4.19-pre series on several I/O benchmarks. Comparing 2.4.18 to 2.4.19 on a quad xeon. Here are a few of the big changes (average of 5 runs):
Clearly, I may not have been clear that I expected 2.5.xx to be better than 2.4.xx. That may have been an artifact of tuning one kernel or the other, I'm waiting to get clarification on that.
Quoted 1 line
300% drop in cpu usage on ext3 for tiobench seq reads
??? I hope you mean 67% drop.
Signature · 3 lines
bill davidsen <[email protected]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.