On Tue, May 29 2001, Fabio Riccardi wrote:
> yes I get a performance improvement of about 5%
Nice
> could you port your patches to the 2.4.5-ac4 kernel? I'd love to see if the ac
> improvements and yours add to each other.
Sure:
*.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/axboe/patches/2.4.5-ac4/
--
yes I get a performance improvement of about 5%
could you port your patches to the 2.4.5-ac4 kernel? I'd love to see if the ac
improvements and yours add to each other.
Thanks,
- Fabio
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, May 29 2001, Fabio Riccardi wrote:
> > "Leeuw van der, Tim" wrote:
> >
> > > B
On Tue, May 29 2001, Fabio Riccardi wrote:
> "Leeuw van der, Tim" wrote:
>
> > But the claim was that 2.4.5-ac2 is faster than 2.4.5 plain, so which
> > changes are in 2.4.5-ac2 that would make it faster than 2.4.5 plain? Also, I
> > don't know if 2.4.5-ac1 is as fast as 2.4.5-ac2 for Fabio. If n
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 May 2001, Leeuw van der, Tim wrote:
> >
> > > The VM in 2.4.5 might be largely 'fixed' and I know that the VM changes in
> > > -ac were considered to be but still broken, however for me they
Marcelo Tosatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to confirm this is what happening in your case: Can you please try
> 2.4.4-ac5 and see if the _swap usage_ is still as badly?
2.4.4-ac5 seams to use the swap about as much as 2.4.4, which is less than
2.4.5-ac2. In my simple "freesly boot kernel
On Tue, 29 May 2001, André Dahlqvist wrote:
> André Dahlqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I agree. Kernels after 2.4.4 uses a *lot* more swap for me, which I guess
> > might be part of the reason for the slowdown.
>
> Following up on myself, here are some numbers:
>
> Freshly booted 2.4
André Dahlqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree. Kernels after 2.4.4 uses a *lot* more swap for me, which I guess
> might be part of the reason for the slowdown.
Following up on myself, here are some numbers:
Freshly booted 2.4.4 with X and Mozilla running, 'free' outputs this:
Marcelo Tosatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It did not fixed any interactivity problem.
I agree. Kernels after 2.4.4 uses a *lot* more swap for me, which I guess
might be part of the reason for the slowdown.
--
André Dahlqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the lin
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Leeuw van der, Tim wrote:
> The VM in 2.4.5 might be largely 'fixed' and I know that the VM changes in
> -ac were considered to be but still broken, however for me they worked
> better than what is in 2.4.5.
The VM changes in 2.4.5 fixed a very serious performance problem.
> But the claim was that 2.4.5-ac2 is faster than 2.4.5 plain, so which
> changes are in 2.4.5-ac2 that would make it faster than 2.4.5 plain? Also, I
> don't know if 2.4.5-ac1 is as fast as 2.4.5-ac2 for Fabio. If not, then it's
> a change in the 2.4.5-ac2 changelog. If it is as fast, it is one o
Alan Cox wrote:
> > Performance is back to that of 2.4.2-ac26, and stability is a lot >
better. Under
> > heavy FS pressure 2.4.5-ac2 is about 5-10% faster than vanilla 2.4.5, >
the aa1,2
> > kernels have the same performance of vanilla 2.4.5.
> >
> > Which one of your changes affected perfor
actually, it happens on ext2, also. it was fun trying to switch back to 2.2
after converting raid devs for 2.4 and trashing my emergency boot disk. i
was finally able to restore from tape by mounting -o sync. there was still
some minor corruption caught by fsck, though.
the new sym53c875 driver s
Ok, things are fast again now! :))
Performance is back to that of 2.4.2-ac26, and stability is a lot better. Under
heavy FS pressure 2.4.5-ac2 is about 5-10% faster than vanilla 2.4.5, the aa1,2
kernels have the same performance of vanilla 2.4.5.
Which one of your changes affected performance so
i haven't had any reiserfs crashes on my alpha, but restoring a backup of a
debian installation to a reiserfs partition doesn't quite work. untarring a
linux kernel tarball to the fs works, does work though. i get these kernel
messages:
May 27 23:28:47 zero kernel: is_leaf: free space seems wrong
14 matches
Mail list logo
