Re: 2.5.65-mm2

["Steven P. Cole" <elenstev@mesatop.com>]

On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 15:17, jjs wrote:
> Steven P. Cole wrote:
> 
> >I repeated the tests with 2.5.65-mm2 elevator=deadline and the situation
> >was similar to elevator=as.  Running dbench on ext3, the response to
> >desktop switches and window wiggles was improved over running dbench on
> >reiserfs, but typing in Evolution was subject to long delays with dbench
> >clients greater than 16.
> >
> >I rebooted with 2.5.65-bk and ran dbench on ext3 again.  Everything was
> >going smoothly, excellent interactivity, and then with dbench 28, the
> >system froze.  No response to pings, no response to alt-sysrq-b (after
> >alt-sysrq-s).  A hard reset was required.  Nothing interesting logged.
> >Too bad.  Before it crashed, 2.5.65-bk was responding to typing in an
> >Evolution new message window better than -mm2.
> >
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what is the result of:
> 
> cat /proc/sys/sched/max_timeslice?
> 
> Does setting that to e.g. 50 make -mm2 smooth?
> 
> Joe

[root@spc1 steven]# cat /proc/sys/sched/max_timeslice
200
[root@spc1 steven]# echo 50 >/proc/sys/sched/max_timeslice
[root@spc1 steven]# cat /proc/sys/sched/max_timeslice
50

Ouch. I inserted the above text saved as a file, and had to wait
over a minute after hitting the OK button.  I aborted dbench which was
running 24 clients on ext3 just to finish this.

The change in max_timeslice didn't seem to improve things.

Apart from the little matter of crashing, 2.5-bk was more usable at that
and higher loads.

I'll try the different value of max_timeslice with dbench on reiserfs
next.  That's where the lack of response was most evident.

Steven