From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 04:52:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 04:51:50 -0400 Received: from hal.grips.com ([62.144.214.40]:45738 "EHLO hal.grips.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 04:51:43 -0400 Message-Id: <200109280851.f8S8pKL29417@hal.grips.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Gerold Jury To: Robert Cohen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BENCH] Problems with IO throughput and fairness with 2.4.10 and 2.4.9-ac15 Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:51:20 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] In-Reply-To: <3BB31F99.941813DD@anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3BB31F99.941813DD@anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I have tried 2.4.9-xfs against 2.4.10-xfs with dbench. The machine has 384 MB ram. The throughput is roughly the same for both with dbench 2. dbench 32 runs fine on 2.4.9-xfs but does not finish on 2.4.10-xfs. dbench 24 will finish on 2.4.10 but it takes a very very long time. All dbench processes are stuck in D state after 10 seconds. I am not sure if it is the xfs part, the VM or both. Can you give the dbench 32 a try ? Regards Gerold On Thursday 27 September 2001 14:46, Robert Cohen wrote: > Given the recent flurry of changes in the Linux kernel VM subsystems I > decided to do a bit of benchmarking.