RE:IDE throughput in 2.6 - it's good!

RE:IDE throughput in 2.6 - it's good!

[FabF]

Ken,

	AFAICS, some hdparm -t or dbench 1 will reveal slight variations
between 2.4 & 2.6 ... In some cases 2.4 will be better.

	Running dbench 10 we have :

2.6
202 48.57
234 22.28
234 16.00
234 12.48
234 10.23
234 8.66
234 7.52
431 12.37
463 11.86
464 10.76

2.4.21
119 15.06
151 10.75
282 15.54
301 13.44
313 11.84
352 11.49
360 10.38
360 9.29
360 8.42

	Here's what we can call a server direction.2.6 is unbeatable there due
to IO scheduler (i.e. As-iosched, cfq and noop rock'n'roll)

	There are no good conclusions at all although ,at this state of
development, IMHO, 2.4 seems more 'client friendly' and 2.6 server
oriented in this chapter.

Regards,
FabF

Re: IDE throughput in 2.6 - it's good!

[Nick Piggin]

FabF wrote:
> 	Here's what we can call a server direction.2.6 is unbeatable there due
> to IO scheduler (i.e. As-iosched, cfq and noop rock'n'roll)

Well, which one were you using just now? AS I assume?

> 
> 	There are no good conclusions at all although ,at this state of
> development, IMHO, 2.4 seems more 'client friendly' and 2.6 server
> oriented in this chapter.

IO scheduler wise, AS should be good for "clients" (ie. desktop)
because it is the desktop where AS's possible small throughput
regressions are not a big problem even if they did arise.