From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161184AbWAHLFs (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2006 06:05:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161185AbWAHLFs (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2006 06:05:48 -0500 Received: from relay02.mail-hub.dodo.com.au ([202.136.32.45]:57812 "EHLO relay02.mail-hub.dodo.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161184AbWAHLFr (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2006 06:05:47 -0500 From: Grant Coady To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Markus Rechberger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:05:43 +1100 Organization: http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/ Reply-To: gcoady@gmail.com Message-ID: References: <20060108095741.GH7142@w.ods.org> In-Reply-To: <20060108095741.GH7142@w.ods.org> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:57:41 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Could you please retest : > - without the pipe (remove '| cut ...') to avoid inter-process > communications I thought it made a difference, then delay back again, I'll try again tomorrow when I'm more awake. >You should be able to find one simple pattern which makes the problem >appear/disappear on 2.6. At least, 'cat x.log >/dev/null' should not >take time or that time should be spent in I/O. Yes, done that and the time went down by ~five seconds. More tomorrow my time ;) -- Thanks, Grant. http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/