On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:57:36PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Some more results, using a larger number of processes and io depths. A > repeat of the tests from friday, with added depth 20000 for syslet and > libaio: > > Engine Depth Processes Bw (MiB/sec) > ---------------------------------------------------- > libaio 1 1 602 > syslet 1 1 759 > sync 1 1 776 > libaio 32 1 832 > syslet 32 1 898 > libaio 20000 1 581 > syslet 20000 1 609 > > syslet still on top. Measuring O_DIRECT reads (of 4kb size) on ramfs > with 100 processes each with a depth of 200, reading a per-process > private file of 10mb (need to fit in my ram...) 10 times each. IOW, > doing 10,000MiB of IO in total:
But, why ramfs ? Don't we want to exercise the case where O_DIRECT actually blocks ? Or am I missing something here ? Regards Suparna > > Engine Depth Processes Bw (MiB/sec) > ---------------------------------------------------- > libaio 200 100 1488 > syslet 200 100 1714 > > Results are stable to within approx +/- 10MiB/sec. The syslet case > completes a whole second faster than libaio (~6 vs ~7 seconds). Testing > was done with fio HEAD eb7c8ae27bc301b77490b3586dd5ccab7c95880a, and it > uses the v4 patch series. > > Engine Depth Processes Bw (MiB/sec) > ---------------------------------------------------- > libaio 200 100 1488 > syslet 200 100 1714 > sync 200 100 1843 > > -- > Jens Axboe -- Suparna Bhattacharya ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Linux Technology Center IBM Software Lab, India - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
