From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751118AbWDRHaT (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2006 03:30:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751139AbWDRHaT (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2006 03:30:19 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:41609 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751118AbWDRHaQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2006 03:30:16 -0400 Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2]Extend ext3 filesystem limit from 8TB to 16TB From: Arjan van de Ven To: Laurent Vivier Cc: Ravikiran G Thirumalai , Andrew Morton , Mingming Cao , Takashi Sato , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1145344481.17767.1.camel@openx2.frec.bull.fr> References: <1143530126.11560.6.camel@openx2.frec.bull.fr> <1143568905.3935.13.camel@dyn9047017067.beaverton.ibm.com> <1143623605.5046.11.camel@openx2.frec.bull.fr> <1143682730.4045.145.camel@dyn9047017067.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060329175446.67149f32.akpm@osdl.org> <1144660270.5816.3.camel@openx2.frec.bull.fr> <20060410012431.716d1000.akpm@osdl.org> <1144941999.2914.1.camel@openx2.frec.bull.fr> <20060417210746.GB3945@localhost.localdomain> <1145308176.2847.90.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060417213201.GC3945@localhost.localdomain> <1145344481.17767.1.camel@openx2.frec.bull.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:30:07 +0200 Message-Id: <1145345407.2976.13.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 09:14 +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > Le lun 17/04/2006 à 23:32, Ravikiran G Thirumalai a écrit : > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 11:09:36PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 14:07 -0700, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I ran the same tests on a 16 core EM64T box very similar to the one > > > > you ran > > > > dbench on :). Dbench results on ext3 varies quite a bit. I couldn't > > > > get > > > > to a statistically significant conclusion For eg, > > > > > > > > > dbench is not a good performance benchmark. At all. Don't use it for > > > that ;) > > > > Agreed. (I did not mean to use it in the first place :). I was just trying > > to verify the benchmark results posted earlier) > > > > Thanks, > > Kiran > > What is the good performance benchmark to know if we should use atomic_t > instead of percpu_counter ? you probably want something like postal/postmark instead or so (although that's not ideal either), at least that's reproducable