* Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? @ 2006-01-08 6:16 Grant Coady 2006-01-08 6:58 ` Markus Rechberger 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Grant Coady @ 2006-01-08 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Hi there, Recently I started testing 2.6 stable on my firewall box here, I work via ssh terminals to firewall and have a good feel for the CLI responsiveness. The test? Just a simple display the apache access log, but it is very slow with 2.6 kernels (2.6.14.5, 2.6.14.6, 2.6.15): 2.4.32-hf32.1: grant@deltree:~$ time grep -v 192\.168\. /var/log/apache/access_log |cut -c-96 [...] 2006-01-08 14:38:52 +1100: bugsplatter.mine.nu 207.46.98.39 "GET /test/linux-2.6/sempro/ HTTP/1. real 0m1.562s user 0m0.600s sys 0m0.310s 2.6.14.6: grant@deltree:~$ time grep -v 192\.168\. /var/log/apache/access_log |cut -c-96 [...] 2006-01-08 14:38:52 +1100: bugsplatter.mine.nu 207.46.98.39 "GET /test/linux-2.6/sempro/ HTTP/1. real 0m6.318s user 0m0.690s sys 0m1.140s grant@deltree:~$ /sbin/lspci 00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 430FX - 82437FX TSC [Triton I] (rev 02) 00:07.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82371FB PIIX ISA [Triton I] (rev 02) 00:07.1 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82371FB PIIX IDE [Triton I] (rev 02) 00:0d.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro 100] (rev 08) 00:0e.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro 100] (rev 08) 00:10.0 VGA compatible controller: S3 Inc. 86c764/765 [Trio32/64/64V+] (rev 44) dmesg + .config on: http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/test/boxen/deltree/ -- Thanks, Grant. http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 6:16 Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? Grant Coady @ 2006-01-08 6:58 ` Markus Rechberger 2006-01-08 7:18 ` Bernd Eckenfels 2006-01-08 7:28 ` Grant Coady 0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Markus Rechberger @ 2006-01-08 6:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcoady; +Cc: linux-kernel Hi, what does hdparm show up? Were there any other processes running during the test? what does "vmstat 1" show up during the test? Markus On 1/8/06, Grant Coady <gcoady@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there, > > Recently I started testing 2.6 stable on my firewall box here, I > work via ssh terminals to firewall and have a good feel for the > CLI responsiveness. > > The test? Just a simple display the apache access log, but it is > very slow with 2.6 kernels (2.6.14.5, 2.6.14.6, 2.6.15): > > 2.4.32-hf32.1: > grant@deltree:~$ time grep -v 192\.168\. /var/log/apache/access_log |cut -c-96 > [...] > 2006-01-08 14:38:52 +1100: bugsplatter.mine.nu 207.46.98.39 "GET /test/linux-2.6/sempro/ HTTP/1. > > real 0m1.562s > user 0m0.600s > sys 0m0.310s > > 2.6.14.6: > grant@deltree:~$ time grep -v 192\.168\. /var/log/apache/access_log |cut -c-96 > [...] > 2006-01-08 14:38:52 +1100: bugsplatter.mine.nu 207.46.98.39 "GET /test/linux-2.6/sempro/ HTTP/1. > > real 0m6.318s > user 0m0.690s > sys 0m1.140s > > grant@deltree:~$ /sbin/lspci > 00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 430FX - 82437FX TSC [Triton I] (rev 02) > 00:07.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82371FB PIIX ISA [Triton I] (rev 02) > 00:07.1 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82371FB PIIX IDE [Triton I] (rev 02) > 00:0d.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro 100] (rev 08) > 00:0e.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro 100] (rev 08) > 00:10.0 VGA compatible controller: S3 Inc. 86c764/765 [Trio32/64/64V+] (rev 44) > > dmesg + .config on: http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/test/boxen/deltree/ > > -- > Thanks, > Grant. > http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/ > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- Markus Rechberger ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 6:58 ` Markus Rechberger @ 2006-01-08 7:18 ` Bernd Eckenfels 2006-01-08 7:42 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-08 7:28 ` Grant Coady 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Bernd Eckenfels @ 2006-01-08 7:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Markus Rechberger <mrechberger@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > what does hdparm show up? > Were there any other processes running during the test? > what does "vmstat 1" show up during the test? also also retry with redirection to /dev/null, this could be a console problem since there is 5 minutes wait time. Gruss Bernd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 7:18 ` Bernd Eckenfels @ 2006-01-08 7:42 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-08 8:00 ` Bernd Eckenfels 2006-01-08 12:04 ` Jan Engelhardt 0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Grant Coady @ 2006-01-08 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bernd Eckenfels; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:18:40 +0100, be-news06@lina.inka.de (Bernd Eckenfels) wrote: >Markus Rechberger <mrechberger@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> what does hdparm show up? >> Were there any other processes running during the test? >> what does "vmstat 1" show up during the test? > >also also retry with redirection to /dev/null, this could be a console >problem since there is 5 minutes wait time. Excuse me? there is no 5 minutes wait time ;) grant@deltree:~$ uname -r 2.4.32-hf32.1 grant@deltree:~$ time grep -v 192\.168\. /var/log/apache/access_log |cut -c-96 real 0m1.671s user 0m0.550s sys 0m0.300s grant@deltree:~$ time grep -v 192\.168\. /var/log/apache/access_log |cut -c-96 >/dev/null real 0m0.510s user 0m0.420s sys 0m0.080s grant@deltree:~$ uname -r 2.6.14.6a grant@deltree:~$ time grep -v 192\.168\. /var/log/apache/access_log |cut -c-96 >/dev/null real 0m6.463s user 0m0.770s sys 0m0.990s grant@deltree:~$ time grep -v 192\.168\. /var/log/apache/access_log |cut -c-96 >/dev/null real 0m0.524s user 0m0.400s sys 0m0.130s Yes, the delay is in the console, that's what I'm talking about ;) A very perceivable, measurable sluggishness in 2.6 CLI over ssh. Same thing on 2.6.14.6 screen console is (copy by hand): real 0m1.374s user 0m0.510s sys 0m0.960s -- Thanks, Grant. http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 7:42 ` Grant Coady @ 2006-01-08 8:00 ` Bernd Eckenfels 2006-01-08 8:11 ` Con Kolivas 2006-01-08 12:04 ` Jan Engelhardt 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Bernd Eckenfels @ 2006-01-08 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Grant Coady On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 06:42:25PM +1100, Grant Coady wrote: > Excuse me? there is no 5 minutes wait time ;) sure there is, you see the real time is 6mins vs 1min. since user and system time are nearly the same, the delay is introduced by sleeping io. And if it is not the disk, it is the terminal, as proofen by the redirection. No the question is, if this is in the pty or tcp/networkstack code. Gruss Bernd -- (OO) -- Bernd_Eckenfels@Mörscher_Strasse_8.76185Karlsruhe.de -- ( .. ) ecki@{inka.de,linux.de,debian.org} http://www.eckes.org/ o--o 1024D/E383CD7E eckes@IRCNet v:+497211603874 f:+49721151516129 (O____O) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 8:00 ` Bernd Eckenfels @ 2006-01-08 8:11 ` Con Kolivas 2006-01-08 9:12 ` Bernd Eckenfels 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Con Kolivas @ 2006-01-08 8:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bernd Eckenfels; +Cc: linux-kernel, Grant Coady On Sunday 08 January 2006 19:00, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 06:42:25PM +1100, Grant Coady wrote: > > Excuse me? there is no 5 minutes wait time ;) > > sure there is, you see the real time is 6mins vs 1min. since user and > system time are nearly the same, the delay is introduced by sleeping io. He was trying to say it was seconds, not minutes. Cheers, Con ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 8:11 ` Con Kolivas @ 2006-01-08 9:12 ` Bernd Eckenfels 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Bernd Eckenfels @ 2006-01-08 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote: > He was trying to say it was seconds, not minutes. Oh yes, sure ... surry me bad. Gruss Bernd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 7:42 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-08 8:00 ` Bernd Eckenfels @ 2006-01-08 12:04 ` Jan Engelhardt 2006-01-08 19:20 ` Grant Coady 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2006-01-08 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Grant Coady; +Cc: Bernd Eckenfels, linux-kernel >grant@deltree:~$ time grep -v 192\.168\. /var/log/apache/access_log |cut -c-96 > >real 0m1.671s >user 0m0.550s >sys 0m0.300s >grant@deltree:~$ time grep -v 192\.168\. /var/log/apache/access_log |cut -c-96 >/dev/null > >real 0m0.510s >user 0m0.420s >sys 0m0.080s Given that the first command is the first one accessing access_log at all, then: the second time, access_log is already cached and therefore can be accessed faster. Jan Engelhardt -- | Alphagate Systems, http://alphagate.hopto.org/ | jengelh's site, http://jengelh.hopto.org/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 12:04 ` Jan Engelhardt @ 2006-01-08 19:20 ` Grant Coady 2006-02-22 19:27 ` Enrico Weigelt 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Grant Coady @ 2006-01-08 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: Bernd Eckenfels, linux-kernel On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:04:22 +0100 (MET), Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de> wrote: > >>grant@deltree:~$ time grep -v 192\.168\. /var/log/apache/access_log |cut -c-96 >> >>real 0m1.671s >>user 0m0.550s >>sys 0m0.300s >>grant@deltree:~$ time grep -v 192\.168\. /var/log/apache/access_log |cut -c-96 >/dev/null >> >>real 0m0.510s >>user 0m0.420s >>sys 0m0.080s > >Given that the first command is the first one accessing access_log at >all, then: the second time, access_log is already cached and >therefore can be accessed faster. I did repeat measurements to check for variation due to caching, and that is not what is happening, we comparing going out over ssh terminal to dumping output locally. Grant. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 19:20 ` Grant Coady @ 2006-02-22 19:27 ` Enrico Weigelt 2006-02-22 23:17 ` Adrian Bunk 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Enrico Weigelt @ 2006-02-22 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel BTW: I had a similar problem after switching from 2.6.8.1 to 2.6.15 ... the whole machine (athlon-xp) behaves extremly slow and not even playing mp3 worked without hangs. So I switched back to old 2.6.8.1 for now ... cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: contact@metux.de cellphone: +49 174 7066481 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-02-22 19:27 ` Enrico Weigelt @ 2006-02-22 23:17 ` Adrian Bunk 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Adrian Bunk @ 2006-02-22 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Enrico Weigelt; +Cc: linux-kernel On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 08:27:07PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > BTW: I had a similar problem after switching from 2.6.8.1 > to 2.6.15 ... the whole machine (athlon-xp) behaves extremly > slow and not even playing mp3 worked without hangs. > > So I switched back to old 2.6.8.1 for now ... A better solution would be if it could be determined what your problem is. Could you try 2.6.16-rc4? If the problem is still present, please open a bug report at the kernel Bugzilla [1] with an explanation of your problem, your .config with 2.6.16-rc4 and the output of "dmesg -s 1000000" in both 2.6.8.1 and 2.6.16-rc4. We should fix regressions like yours, but this requires bug reports notifying us about problems. > cu TIA Adrian [1] http://bugzilla.kernel.org/ -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 6:58 ` Markus Rechberger 2006-01-08 7:18 ` Bernd Eckenfels @ 2006-01-08 7:28 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-08 9:57 ` Willy Tarreau 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Grant Coady @ 2006-01-08 7:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Rechberger; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 07:58:09 +0100, Markus Rechberger <mrechberger@gmail.com> wrote: >Were there any other processes running during the test? box runs same config both kernels: the usual light load ~100% idle ;) >what does "vmstat 1" show up during the test? grant@deltree:~$ uname -r 2.6.14.6a grant@deltree:~$ vmstat 1 procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa [...] 0 0 0 63800 11520 32352 0 0 0 0 110 18 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 63800 11520 32352 0 0 0 0 106 17 1 0 99 0 3 0 0 63560 11520 32352 0 0 0 0 346 502 22 9 69 0 1 0 0 63560 11520 32352 0 0 0 0 1057 1987 59 41 0 0 1 0 0 63560 11520 32352 0 0 0 0 1062 2011 59 41 0 0 1 0 0 63560 11520 32352 0 0 0 0 1053 2001 50 50 0 0 1 0 0 63500 11596 32352 0 0 0 136 1054 1974 61 39 0 0 1 0 0 63500 11596 32352 0 0 0 0 1040 1978 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 63620 11596 32352 0 0 0 0 799 1425 45 27 29 0 0 0 0 63620 11596 32352 0 0 0 0 104 12 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 63620 11596 32352 0 0 0 0 103 10 0 0 100 0 grant@deltree:~$ uname -r 2.4.32-hf32.1 grant@deltree:~$ vmstat 1 procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa [...] 0 0 0 83192 6532 21404 0 0 0 0 104 12 0 1 99 0 0 0 0 83152 6572 21404 0 0 0 80 116 24 0 1 99 0 1 0 0 82952 6572 21404 0 0 0 0 168 130 6 5 89 0 2 0 0 82952 6572 21404 0 0 0 0 667 1019 65 35 0 0 0 0 0 83152 6572 21404 0 0 0 0 297 378 41 10 49 0 0 0 0 83152 6572 21404 0 0 0 0 104 9 0 1 99 0 0 0 0 83064 6656 21404 0 0 0 304 169 121 0 1 99 0 0 0 0 83064 6656 21404 0 0 0 0 137 42 0 2 98 0 -- Thanks, Grant. http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 7:28 ` Grant Coady @ 2006-01-08 9:57 ` Willy Tarreau 2006-01-08 10:23 ` Bernd Eckenfels 2006-01-08 11:05 ` Grant Coady 0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Willy Tarreau @ 2006-01-08 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Grant Coady; +Cc: Markus Rechberger, linux-kernel Hi Grant, On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 06:28:53PM +1100, Grant Coady wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 07:58:09 +0100, Markus Rechberger <mrechberger@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Were there any other processes running during the test? > box runs same config both kernels: the usual light load ~100% idle ;) > >what does "vmstat 1" show up during the test? > > grant@deltree:~$ uname -r > 2.6.14.6a > grant@deltree:~$ vmstat 1 > procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu---- > r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa > [...] > 0 0 0 63800 11520 32352 0 0 0 0 110 18 0 0 100 0 > 0 0 0 63800 11520 32352 0 0 0 0 106 17 1 0 99 0 > 3 0 0 63560 11520 32352 0 0 0 0 346 502 22 9 69 0 > 1 0 0 63560 11520 32352 0 0 0 0 1057 1987 59 41 0 0 > 1 0 0 63560 11520 32352 0 0 0 0 1062 2011 59 41 0 0 > 1 0 0 63560 11520 32352 0 0 0 0 1053 2001 50 50 0 0 > 1 0 0 63500 11596 32352 0 0 0 136 1054 1974 61 39 0 0 > 1 0 0 63500 11596 32352 0 0 0 0 1040 1978 50 50 0 0 > 0 0 0 63620 11596 32352 0 0 0 0 799 1425 45 27 29 0 > 0 0 0 63620 11596 32352 0 0 0 0 104 12 0 0 100 0 > 0 0 0 63620 11596 32352 0 0 0 0 103 10 0 0 100 0 > > grant@deltree:~$ uname -r > 2.4.32-hf32.1 > grant@deltree:~$ vmstat 1 > procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu---- > r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa > [...] > 0 0 0 83192 6532 21404 0 0 0 0 104 12 0 1 99 0 > 0 0 0 83152 6572 21404 0 0 0 80 116 24 0 1 99 0 > 1 0 0 82952 6572 21404 0 0 0 0 168 130 6 5 89 0 > 2 0 0 82952 6572 21404 0 0 0 0 667 1019 65 35 0 0 > 0 0 0 83152 6572 21404 0 0 0 0 297 378 41 10 49 0 > 0 0 0 83152 6572 21404 0 0 0 0 104 9 0 1 99 0 > 0 0 0 83064 6656 21404 0 0 0 304 169 121 0 1 99 0 > 0 0 0 83064 6656 21404 0 0 0 0 137 42 0 2 98 0 It's rather strange that 2.6 *eats* CPU apparently doing nothing ! At first I thought about a PIO/DMA problemn but we can clearly see that there's no IO in on both vmstat. Could you please retest : - without the pipe (remove '| cut ...') to avoid inter-process communications - with cat instead of grep to ensure you don't spend time processing anything 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. I remember an old test I did a long time ago which behaved badly on 2.6, it consisted in lots of pipes (eg: dd bs=1 | dd bs=1 |...). May be you're on a simplified form of this. > -- > Thanks, > Grant. > http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/ Cheers, Willy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 9:57 ` Willy Tarreau @ 2006-01-08 10:23 ` Bernd Eckenfels 2006-01-08 10:54 ` Willy Tarreau 2006-01-08 11:18 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-08 11:05 ` Grant Coady 1 sibling, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Bernd Eckenfels @ 2006-01-08 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org> wrote: > It's rather strange that 2.6 *eats* CPU apparently doing nothing ! it eats it in high interrupt load. And it is caused by the pty-ssh-tcp output, so most likely those are eepro100 interrupts. Gruss Bernd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 10:23 ` Bernd Eckenfels @ 2006-01-08 10:54 ` Willy Tarreau 2006-01-08 11:09 ` Bernd Eckenfels 2006-01-08 11:18 ` Grant Coady 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Willy Tarreau @ 2006-01-08 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bernd Eckenfels; +Cc: linux-kernel, gcoady On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:23:37AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org> wrote: > > It's rather strange that 2.6 *eats* CPU apparently doing nothing ! > > it eats it in high interrupt load. *high* ? he never goes far beyond 1000/s ! > And it is caused by the pty-ssh-tcp output, quite possibly, but I'd rather think it's more precisely related to the ping-pong in the scheduler between grep, cut and ssh. I had the same symptom with 'ls' in xterm with lots of files. It took tens of seconds to list 2000 files while 'ls |cat' gave the same result instantly. I also have another example (2.6.15-rc5, dual athlon, logged in via SSH) : willy@pcw:willy$ time ls -l real 0m0.150s user 0m0.016s sys 0m0.024s Now if I start 4 processes in background : willy@pcw:willy$ time ls -l real 0m4.432s user 0m0.028s sys 0m0.008s With 8 processes in background : willy@pcw:willy$ time ls -l real 0m49.817s user 0m0.020s sys 0m0.008s willy@pcw:willy$ time ls -l | wc -l 1259 real 0m18.917s user 0m0.016s sys 0m0.012s I think my case with 4 processes on a dual CPU ressembles Grant's case with 2 processes on single CPU. The background processes are only ones which eat CPU half of their time, which might sometimes match an I/O bound process such as grep from a disk. > so most likely those are eepro100 interrupts. I don't think so. > Gruss > Bernd Regards, Willy PS: please don't remove people in CC: ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 10:54 ` Willy Tarreau @ 2006-01-08 11:09 ` Bernd Eckenfels 2006-01-08 11:16 ` Willy Tarreau 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Bernd Eckenfels @ 2006-01-08 11:09 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: Willy Tarreau, linux-kernel, gcoady On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:54:01AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > it eats it in high interrupt load. > *high* ? he never goes far beyond 1000/s ! it is 10 times higher on 2.6 than 2.4 (I dont think this can be explained by the timer, only.) > quite possibly, but I'd rather think it's more precisely related > to the ping-pong in the scheduler between grep, cut and ssh. Could be, that would also send smaller buffers to tcp... Gruss Bernd -- (OO) -- Bernd_Eckenfels@Mörscher_Strasse_8.76185Karlsruhe.de -- ( .. ) ecki@{inka.de,linux.de,debian.org} http://www.eckes.org/ o--o 1024D/E383CD7E eckes@IRCNet v:+497211603874 f:+49721151516129 (O____O) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 11:09 ` Bernd Eckenfels @ 2006-01-08 11:16 ` Willy Tarreau 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Willy Tarreau @ 2006-01-08 11:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bernd Eckenfels; +Cc: linux-kernel, gcoady On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 12:09:19PM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:54:01AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > it eats it in high interrupt load. > > *high* ? he never goes far beyond 1000/s ! > > it is 10 times higher on 2.6 than 2.4 (I dont think this can be explained > by the timer, only.) > > > quite possibly, but I'd rather think it's more precisely related > > to the ping-pong in the scheduler between grep, cut and ssh. > > Could be, that would also send smaller buffers to tcp... that's true, and that could explain the higher interrupt rate. > Gruss > Bernd Cheers, Willy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 10:23 ` Bernd Eckenfels 2006-01-08 10:54 ` Willy Tarreau @ 2006-01-08 11:18 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-09 2:37 ` Jesse Brandeburg 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Grant Coady @ 2006-01-08 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bernd Eckenfels; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 11:23:37 +0100, be-news06@lina.inka.de (Bernd Eckenfels) wrote: >Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org> wrote: >> It's rather strange that 2.6 *eats* CPU apparently doing nothing ! > >it eats it in high interrupt load. And it is caused by the pty-ssh-tcp >output, so most likely those are eepro100 interrupts. That would be true for either 2.4 or 2.6, no? Also it runs e100 driver, but... 2.4 dmesg: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Driver - version 2.3.43-k1 Copyright (c) 2004 Intel Corporation e100: selftest OK. e100: eth0: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Connection Hardware receive checksums enabled cpu cycle saver enabled 2.6 dmesg: [ 31.977945] e100: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Driver, 3.4.14-k2-NAPI [ 31.978007] e100: Copyright(c) 1999-2005 Intel Corporation [ 32.002928] e100: eth0: e100_probe: addr 0xfd201000, irq 11, MAC addr 00:90:27:42:AA:77 [ 32.026992] e100: eth1: e100_probe: addr 0xfd200000, irq 12, MAC addr 00:90:27:58:32:D4 [ 32.186941] e100: eth0: e100_watchdog: link up, 100Mbps, full-duplex Are rx checksums not turned on in 2.6' e100 driver? CPU is only pentium/mmx 233 -- Thanks, Grant. http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 11:18 ` Grant Coady @ 2006-01-09 2:37 ` Jesse Brandeburg 2006-01-09 2:46 ` Lee Revell ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Jesse Brandeburg @ 2006-01-09 2:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcoady; +Cc: Bernd Eckenfels, linux-kernel On 1/8/06, Grant Coady <gcoady@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 11:23:37 +0100, be-news06@lina.inka.de (Bernd Eckenfels) wrote: > > >Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org> wrote: > >> It's rather strange that 2.6 *eats* CPU apparently doing nothing ! > > > >it eats it in high interrupt load. And it is caused by the pty-ssh-tcp > >output, so most likely those are eepro100 interrupts. > > That would be true for either 2.4 or 2.6, no? Also it runs e100 > driver, but... > > 2.4 dmesg: > Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Driver - version 2.3.43-k1 > Copyright (c) 2004 Intel Corporation > > e100: selftest OK. > e100: eth0: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Connection > Hardware receive checksums enabled > cpu cycle saver enabled > > 2.6 dmesg: > [ 31.977945] e100: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Driver, 3.4.14-k2-NAPI > [ 31.978007] e100: Copyright(c) 1999-2005 Intel Corporation > [ 32.002928] e100: eth0: e100_probe: addr 0xfd201000, irq 11, MAC addr 00:90:27:42:AA:77 > [ 32.026992] e100: eth1: e100_probe: addr 0xfd200000, irq 12, MAC addr 00:90:27:58:32:D4 > [ 32.186941] e100: eth0: e100_watchdog: link up, 100Mbps, full-duplex > > Are rx checksums not turned on in 2.6' e100 driver? > CPU is only pentium/mmx 233 Hey Grant, to answer your question, checksums are not offloaded with the current e100 driver but that really shouldn't make that much of a difference. I'm actually going to go with interrupt load due to e100 being at least related to the problem. BTW I get access denied when hitting http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/test/boxen/deltree/ The netdev-2.6 git tree currently has a driver that supports microcode loading for your rev 8 PRO/100 and that microcode may help your interrupt load due to e100. however, it may already be loading. Also, what do you have HZ set to? (250 is default in 2.6, 1000 in 2.4) so you could try running your 2.6 kernel with HZ=1000 while you're running your test you could try (if you have sysstat) sar -I <e100 interrupt> 1 10 or a simpler version, 10 loops of cat /proc/interrupts; sleep 1; Lets see if its e100, Jesse ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-09 2:37 ` Jesse Brandeburg @ 2006-01-09 2:46 ` Lee Revell 2006-01-09 2:59 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-09 6:56 ` Grant Coady 2 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Lee Revell @ 2006-01-09 2:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jesse Brandeburg; +Cc: gcoady, Bernd Eckenfels, linux-kernel On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 18:37 -0800, Jesse Brandeburg wrote: > Also, what do you have HZ set to? (250 is default in 2.6, 1000 in 2.4) > so you could try running your 2.6 kernel with HZ=1000 s/1000/100/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-09 2:37 ` Jesse Brandeburg 2006-01-09 2:46 ` Lee Revell @ 2006-01-09 2:59 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-09 6:56 ` Grant Coady 2 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Grant Coady @ 2006-01-09 2:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jesse Brandeburg; +Cc: Bernd Eckenfels, linux-kernel On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:37:52 -0800, Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@gmail.com> wrote: >On 1/8/06, Grant Coady <gcoady@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 11:23:37 +0100, be-news06@lina.inka.de (Bernd Eckenfels) wrote: >> >> >Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org> wrote: >> >> It's rather strange that 2.6 *eats* CPU apparently doing nothing ! >> > >> >it eats it in high interrupt load. And it is caused by the pty-ssh-tcp >> >output, so most likely those are eepro100 interrupts. >> >> That would be true for either 2.4 or 2.6, no? Also it runs e100 >> driver, but... >> >> 2.4 dmesg: >> Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Driver - version 2.3.43-k1 >> Copyright (c) 2004 Intel Corporation >> >> e100: selftest OK. >> e100: eth0: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Connection >> Hardware receive checksums enabled >> cpu cycle saver enabled >> >> 2.6 dmesg: >> [ 31.977945] e100: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Driver, 3.4.14-k2-NAPI >> [ 31.978007] e100: Copyright(c) 1999-2005 Intel Corporation >> [ 32.002928] e100: eth0: e100_probe: addr 0xfd201000, irq 11, MAC addr 00:90:27:42:AA:77 >> [ 32.026992] e100: eth1: e100_probe: addr 0xfd200000, irq 12, MAC addr 00:90:27:58:32:D4 >> [ 32.186941] e100: eth0: e100_watchdog: link up, 100Mbps, full-duplex >> >> Are rx checksums not turned on in 2.6' e100 driver? >> CPU is only pentium/mmx 233 > >Hey Grant, to answer your question, checksums are not offloaded with >the current e100 driver but that really shouldn't make that much of a >difference. I'm actually going to go with interrupt load due to e100 >being at least related to the problem. Okay, that may make a difference with a slow CPU. >BTW I get access denied when hitting >http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/test/boxen/deltree/ OMG! Not the red screen? Hmmm, collateral damage ;) Just turned it off, unless you're masquerading as a web crawler :p >The netdev-2.6 git tree currently has a driver that supports microcode >loading for your rev 8 PRO/100 and that microcode may help your >interrupt load due to e100. however, it may already be loading. >Also, what do you have HZ set to? (250 is default in 2.6, 1000 in 2.4) >so you could try running your 2.6 kernel with HZ=1000 Running it with 100Hz, isn't 2.4 == 100Hz? I can try 1000Hz, but not for some hours now, other stuff on. >while you're running your test you could try (if you have sysstat) >sar -I <e100 interrupt> 1 10 > >or a simpler version, 10 loops of cat /proc/interrupts; sleep 1; > >Lets see if its e100, Yes, lets. More later. Cheers, Grant. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-09 2:37 ` Jesse Brandeburg 2006-01-09 2:46 ` Lee Revell 2006-01-09 2:59 ` Grant Coady @ 2006-01-09 6:56 ` Grant Coady 2 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Grant Coady @ 2006-01-09 6:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jesse Brandeburg; +Cc: Bernd Eckenfels, linux-kernel, Willy Tarreau On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:37:52 -0800, Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@gmail.com> wrote: Added Willy to Cc: -- I see a problem with 2 e100 NICs' accounting under 2.4.32... See near and of this report. >> Are rx checksums not turned on in 2.6' e100 driver? >> CPU is only pentium/mmx 233 > >Hey Grant, to answer your question, checksums are not offloaded with >the current e100 driver but that really shouldn't make that much of a >difference. I'm actually going to go with interrupt load due to e100 >being at least related to the problem. > >The netdev-2.6 git tree currently has a driver that supports microcode >loading for your rev 8 PRO/100 and that microcode may help your >interrupt load due to e100. however, it may already be loading. >Also, what do you have HZ set to? (250 is default in 2.6, 1000 in 2.4) >so you could try running your 2.6 kernel with HZ=1000 > >while you're running your test you could try (if you have sysstat) >sar -I <e100 interrupt> 1 10 > >or a simpler version, 10 loops of cat /proc/interrupts; sleep 1; No sar, now I'm running a separate link from the other e100 eth1 from deltree to another box so measurement and test traffic are separated. I do everything via ssh so I can copy/paste from terminals ;) This run is 2.6.15a, with 100Hz and voluntary preempt: grant@deltree:~$ cat /proc/interrupts CPU0 0: 106221 XT-PIC timer 1: 8 XT-PIC i8042 2: 0 XT-PIC cascade 3: 11443 XT-PIC eth2 <<== ADSL modem 8: 1 XT-PIC rtc 11: 20402 XT-PIC eth0 <<== localnet 12: 21860 XT-PIC eth1 <<== spare -> test 14: 3260 XT-PIC ide0 NMI: 0 ERR: 0 grant@deltree:~$ grant@deltree:~$ while true; do grep eth1 /proc/interrupts; sleep 1; done 12: 26357 XT-PIC eth1 12: 26357 XT-PIC eth1 \ 12: 26573 XT-PIC eth1 | 12: 27039 XT-PIC eth1 > time grep -v 192\.168\. \ 12: 27514 XT-PIC eth1 | /var/log/apache/access_log \ 12: 28320 XT-PIC eth1 | | cut -c-96 12: 29090 XT-PIC eth1 | real 0m6.205s 12: 30017 XT-PIC eth1 | user 0m0.620s 12: 30434 XT-PIC eth1 / sys 0m0.730s 12: 30434 XT-PIC eth1 grant@deltree:~$ while true; do grep eth1 /proc/interrupts; sleep 1; done 12: 30650 XT-PIC eth1 12: 30651 XT-PIC eth1 \ 12: 30657 XT-PIC eth1 | 12: 30661 XT-PIC eth1 > time cat /var/log/apache/access_log 12: 30936 XT-PIC eth1 | real 0m2.383s 12: 31343 XT-PIC eth1 | user 0m0.010s 12: 31593 XT-PIC eth1 / sys 0m0.480s 12: 31593 XT-PIC eth1 This run is 2.6.15b, with 1000Hz and voluntary preempt: grant@deltree:~$ while true; do grep eth1 /proc/interrupts; sleep 1; done 12: 4386 XT-PIC eth1 12: 4386 XT-PIC eth1 \ 12: 4427 XT-PIC eth1 | 12: 4904 XT-PIC eth1 > time grep -v 192\.168\. \ 12: 5350 XT-PIC eth1 | /var/log/apache/access_log \ 12: 6065 XT-PIC eth1 | | cut -c-96 12: 6906 XT-PIC eth1 | real 0m6.649s 12: 7693 XT-PIC eth1 | user 0m0.841s 12: 8450 XT-PIC eth1 / sys 0m1.047s 12: 8548 XT-PIC eth1 12: 8548 XT-PIC eth1 ran above a few times to gauge repeatability, variation ~200ms in real. grant@deltree:~$ while true; do grep eth1 /proc/interrupts; sleep 1; done 12: 18347 XT-PIC eth1 12: 18348 XT-PIC eth1 \ 12: 18417 XT-PIC eth1 | 12: 18794 XT-PIC eth1 > time cat /var/log/apache/access_log 12: 19181 XT-PIC eth1 | real 0m2.573s 12: 19283 XT-PIC eth1 / user 0m0.005s 12: 19284 XT-PIC eth1 sys 0m0.547s No joy with 1000Hz, turn off preempt? This run is 2.6.15c, with 1000Hz and no preempt: grant@deltree:~$ while true; do grep eth1 /proc/interrupts; sleep 1; done 12: 4400 XT-PIC eth1 12: 4400 XT-PIC eth1 \ 12: 4614 XT-PIC eth1 | 12: 5053 XT-PIC eth1 > time grep -v 192\.168\. \ 12: 5495 XT-PIC eth1 | /var/log/apache/access_log \ 12: 6686 XT-PIC eth1 | | cut -c-96 12: 7394 XT-PIC eth1 | real 0m6.696s 12: 8258 XT-PIC eth1 | user 0m0.841s 12: 8456 XT-PIC eth1 / sys 0m0.994s 12: 8457 XT-PIC eth1 12: 8457 XT-PIC eth1 grant@deltree:~$ while true; do grep eth1 /proc/interrupts; sleep 1; done 12: 8544 XT-PIC eth1 \ 12: 8814 XT-PIC eth1 | time cat /var/log/apache/access_log 12: 9485 XT-PIC eth1 > real 0m2.511s 12: 9486 XT-PIC eth1 | user 0m0.004s 12: 9486 XT-PIC eth1 / sys 0m0.529s Still no joy? Confirm 2.4 timings, this is with 2.4.32-hf32.1: grant@deltree:~$ while true; do egrep 'eth0|eth1' /proc/interrupts; sleep 1; done 11: 6744 XT-PIC eth0 12: 4 XT-PIC eth1 11: 6746 XT-PIC eth0 \ 12: 4 XT-PIC eth1 | 11: 7178 XT-PIC eth0 > time grep -v 192\.168\. \ 12: 4 XT-PIC eth1 | /var/log/apache/access_log \ 11: 7552 XT-PIC eth0 | | cut -c-96 12: 4 XT-PIC eth1 / real 0m1.565s 11: 7554 XT-PIC eth0 user 0m0.510s 12: 4 XT-PIC eth1 sys 0m0.340s grant@deltree:~$ while true; do egrep 'eth0|eth1' /proc/interrupts; sleep 1; done 11: 9136 XT-PIC eth0 \ 12: 4 XT-PIC eth1 | 11: 9516 XT-PIC eth0 > time cat /var/log/apache/access_log 12: 4 XT-PIC eth1 | real 0m1.946s 11: 10146 XT-PIC eth0 | user 0m0.000s 12: 4 XT-PIC eth1 / sys 0m0.200s 11: 10321 XT-PIC eth0 12: 4 XT-PIC eth1 Odd, with 2.4, the two e100 NICs are not being accounted properly: root@deltree:~# ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:90:27:42:AA:77 inet addr:192.168.1.1 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:4840 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:8825 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:341812 (333.8 Kb) TX bytes:9931009 (9.4 Mb) Interrupt:11 Base address:0xdcc0 Memory:fd201000-fd201038 eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:90:27:58:32:D4 inet addr:192.168.2.1 Bcast:192.168.2.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Interrupt:12 Base address:0xdc80 Memory:fd200000-fd200038 dmesg says: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Driver - version 2.3.43-k1 Copyright (c) 2004 Intel Corporation e100: selftest OK. e100: eth0: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Connection Hardware receive checksums enabled cpu cycle saver enabled e100: selftest OK. e100: eth1: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Connection Hardware receive checksums enabled cpu cycle saver enabled smc-ultra.c:v2.02 2/3/98 Donald Becker (becker@cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov) eth2: SMC Ultra at 0x280, 00 00 C0 5D 46 B5,assigned IRQ 3 memory 0xd0000-0xd3fff. e100: eth0 NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full duplex e100: eth1 NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full duplex Cheers, Grant. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 9:57 ` Willy Tarreau 2006-01-08 10:23 ` Bernd Eckenfels @ 2006-01-08 11:05 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-08 18:21 ` Octavio Alvarez Piza 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Grant Coady @ 2006-01-08 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Willy Tarreau; +Cc: Markus Rechberger, linux-kernel On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:57:41 +0100, Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org> 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 11:05 ` Grant Coady @ 2006-01-08 18:21 ` Octavio Alvarez Piza 2006-01-08 19:27 ` Grant Coady 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Octavio Alvarez Piza @ 2006-01-08 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcoady, linux-kernel; +Cc: Willy Tarreau, Markus Rechberger, linux-kernel On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:05:43 +1100 Grant Coady <gcoady@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:57:41 +0100, Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org> 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. Just make sure you first read all the file with cat (I'd retry all from the initial tests) so you don't add hd-read time to the first command. Octavio. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? 2006-01-08 18:21 ` Octavio Alvarez Piza @ 2006-01-08 19:27 ` Grant Coady 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Grant Coady @ 2006-01-08 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Octavio Alvarez Piza Cc: linux-kernel, Willy Tarreau, Markus Rechberger, linux-kernel On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:21:01 -0800, Octavio Alvarez Piza <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org> wrote: >On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:05:43 +1100 >Grant Coady <gcoady@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:57:41 +0100, Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org> 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. > >Just make sure you first read all the file with cat (I'd retry all from >the initial tests) so you don't add hd-read time to the first command. I do notice occasional pauses (just a slight jerkiness) in output from log file, perhaps when it is appended to. As I wrote earlier, this one liner is something I do fairly often to see what is hitting the web server, the 'cut -c -96' is because I run 96 character wide ssh terminals. Grant. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-02-22 23:18 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-01-08 6:16 Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? Grant Coady 2006-01-08 6:58 ` Markus Rechberger 2006-01-08 7:18 ` Bernd Eckenfels 2006-01-08 7:42 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-08 8:00 ` Bernd Eckenfels 2006-01-08 8:11 ` Con Kolivas 2006-01-08 9:12 ` Bernd Eckenfels 2006-01-08 12:04 ` Jan Engelhardt 2006-01-08 19:20 ` Grant Coady 2006-02-22 19:27 ` Enrico Weigelt 2006-02-22 23:17 ` Adrian Bunk 2006-01-08 7:28 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-08 9:57 ` Willy Tarreau 2006-01-08 10:23 ` Bernd Eckenfels 2006-01-08 10:54 ` Willy Tarreau 2006-01-08 11:09 ` Bernd Eckenfels 2006-01-08 11:16 ` Willy Tarreau 2006-01-08 11:18 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-09 2:37 ` Jesse Brandeburg 2006-01-09 2:46 ` Lee Revell 2006-01-09 2:59 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-09 6:56 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-08 11:05 ` Grant Coady 2006-01-08 18:21 ` Octavio Alvarez Piza 2006-01-08 19:27 ` Grant Coady
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).