big ext3 sequential write improvement in 2.5.51-mm1 gone in 2.5.53-mm1?
Quoted 1 line
qsbench isn't really a thing which should be optimised for.
The way I run qsbench simulates an uncommon workload.
Quoted 2 lines
It is important to specify how much memory you have, and how you are invoking qsbench.
There is 3.75 GB of ram. I grab MemTotal from /proc/meminfo, and run 4 qsbench processes. Each qsbench uses 30% of MemTotal (1089 megs).
Signature · 2 lines
Randy Hron http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html
Quoted 6 lines · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 3 lines
It is important to specify how much memory you have, and how you are invoking qsbench.
There is 3.75 GB of ram. I grab MemTotal from
/proc/meminfo, and run 4 qsbench processes. Each qsbench uses 30% of MemTotal (1089 megs).
Yes, 2.5 sucks at that. Run `top', observe how in 2.4, one qsbench instance grabs all the CPU time, then exits. The remaining three can now complete with no swapout at all..