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, 30 Sep 2002 15:05:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:05:29 -0400 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:56079 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:04:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:02:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Davidsen To: Alan Cox cc: Matthias Andree , linux-kernel mailing list Subject: Re: v2.6 vs v3.0 In-Reply-To: <1033316647.13001.26.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 29 Sep 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sun, 2002-09-29 at 16:26, Matthias Andree wrote: > > I personally have the feeling that 2.2.x performed better than 2.4.x > > does, but I cannot go figure because I'm using ReiserFS 3.6 file > > On low end boxes the benchmarks I did show later 2.4-rmap beats 2.2. 2.0 > worked suprisingly well (better than pre-rmap 2.4) and as Stephen > claimed the best code was about 2.1.100, 2.2 then dropped badly from > that point. I might have said 2.1.106 (I'm still running that on one box), but that's the general sweet spot. > Low memory is of course where rmap does best, so the 2.4-rmap v 2.4 > parts of such testing are not actually that useful In the 2.4-ac vs. 2.4-aa tests I did in the spring, rmap was better on small memory, -aa was better with large memory and heavy write load. I expect ioscheduling to address this, and when I get a totally expendable large machine I'll try 2.5 again. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.