From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967569AbXEHAjT (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2007 20:39:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S967563AbXEHAjP (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2007 20:39:15 -0400 Received: from paragon.brong.net ([66.232.154.163]:57761 "EHLO paragon.brong.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967491AbXEHAjP (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2007 20:39:15 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1837 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 20:39:15 EDT Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 10:08:28 +1000 From: Bron Gondwana To: Bron Gondwana Cc: Adrian Bunk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.16.40 Message-ID: <20070508000828.GA20388@brong.net> References: <20070210164113.GG12958@stusta.de> <20070212061347.GB24889@brong.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070212061347.GB24889@brong.net> Organization: brong.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 05:13:47PM +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote: > On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 05:41:13PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > New drivers since 2.6.16.39: > > - Areca ARC11X0/ARC12X0 SATA-RAID support > > - AMD Athlon64/FX and Opteron temperature sensor > > Sorry - I think I just sent a blank reply to this! Oops. > > I was going to say - thanks. We'll definitely be using > this kernel since we've found that 2.6.19.2 has a > significantly worse IO profile and either the 2.6.16.40-rc1 > kernel or 2.6.18 on otherwise identical machines with pretty > stable loads (so we can compare back to previous weeks). > > Now to figure out what's causing the extra load in the > 2.6.19 branch! By the way, we've just tried a 2.6.20.11 kernel on another machine and so far (fingers crossed) we're not seeing the load issues we had with the 2.6.19 kernel we were using. Given that the Areca driver is the same in both, the only other funky thing we did was a single patch to ReiserFS, but we're applying that same patch on 2.6.20. (my sneaking suspicion was that the delayed bitmap loading was to blame, but it's hard to test these things short of multiple reboots, and we don't have a testing Cyrus install that we can load that heavily) Anyway - if this goes well for the next couple of days we'll probably stop tracking the 2.6.16 series. Thanks again, very much, for your work with 2.6.16. It was fantastic to have this resource to keep us from having to chase more recent kernels just to get the patches we needed! Bron.