After you installed sreadahead, did you reboot twice and measure the second time? I believe sreadahead needs to profile the boot the first time around.
On 09/01/2009 11:22 AM, Hernando Torque wrote: > I cannot confirm your observation. I've 'bootcharted' two systems and > with both sreadahead was slower than not using preloading at all - > readahead-list was faster [I've stopped before GDM loading for pack file > generation and used that list with readahead]. > > Sys 1 (AMD Opteron 144 @ 2.65GHz, 2GB RAM, 7200rpm disk): > - pack file: 733 files with 73.456.165 bytes > * no (s)readahead: 18.0s > * readahead: 17.4s > * sreadahead: 18.4s > * sreadahead started with --no-fork: 19.3s > > Sys 2 (Intel Core Duo T2400 @ 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM, 5400rpm disk): > - pack file: 829 files with 57.408.165 bytes > * no (s)readahead: 23.1s > * readahead: 21.9s > * sreadahead: 24.6s > * sreadahead started with --no-fork: 24.3s > > The gap is not big but it's there. > > --- > > 2.6.31-9-generic (Core Duo system used -7-generic) > > readahead: > Installed: 1:0.20050517.0220-1ubuntu5 > > sreadahead: > Installed: 1.0-2 > -- Improve so it works on HDD disks https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/338822 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
