From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 08:19:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 08:19:48 -0400 Received: from mail.intrex.net ([209.42.192.246]:47627 "EHLO intrex.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 08:19:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 08:20:41 -0400 From: jlnance@intrex.net To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Performance 2.4.8 is worse than 2.4.x<8 Message-ID: <20010813082041.A7390@bessie.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 12:52:47PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 12:52:47PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > Here, disk write throughput seems to want some tweaking, and Bonnie > > doing it's rewrite test triggers a very large and persistant inactive > > shortage which shouldn't be there (imho). > > This is one of the reasons I kept the 2.4.7 vm. The 2.4.8 vm is better > than 2.4.8pre but not actually better than the older VM by feel or > measurement on my test boxes Alan, Which kernels are you refering to when you speak of the older VM? Thanks, Jim