Re: 2.2.19pre6aa1 degraded performance for me...

2001-01-09 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:07:55AM +0100, Sasi Peter wrote: > I thought it over again. I still have to say it is a nonsense for a kernel > not to have _anything_ (zero pages) currently unused swapped out under > such an I/O load! Could you generate some furhter memory pressure to see what

Re: 2.2.19pre6aa1 degraded performance for me...

2001-01-09 Thread Sasi Peter
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Sasi Peter wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:46:29PM +0100, Sasi Peter wrote: > > > What I had w/2.2.18pre19 (+raid+ide): > > > ~80MB more in cache and ~80MB swapped out (eg. currently unused notes > > > server and squid) There

Re: 2.2.19pre6aa1 degraded performance for me...

2001-01-09 Thread Sasi Peter
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Sasi Peter wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:46:29PM +0100, Sasi Peter wrote: What I had w/2.2.18pre19 (+raid+ide): ~80MB more in cache and ~80MB swapped out (eg. currently unused notes server and squid) There is enough

Re: 2.2.19pre6aa1 degraded performance for me...

2001-01-09 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:07:55AM +0100, Sasi Peter wrote: I thought it over again. I still have to say it is a nonsense for a kernel not to have _anything_ (zero pages) currently unused swapped out under such an I/O load! Could you generate some furhter memory pressure to see what happens?

Re: 2.2.19pre6aa1 degraded performance for me...

2001-01-08 Thread Sasi Peter
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:46:29PM +0100, Sasi Peter wrote: > > What I had w/2.2.18pre19 (+raid+ide): > > ~80MB more in cache and ~80MB swapped out (eg. currently unused notes > > server and squid) There is enough of swap over 3 disks (like the > >

Re: 2.2.19pre6aa1 degraded performance for me...

2001-01-08 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:46:29PM +0100, Sasi Peter wrote: > What I had w/2.2.18pre19 (+raid+ide): > ~80MB more in cache and ~80MB swapped out (eg. currently unused notes > server and squid) There is enough of swap over 3 disks (like the > raid), so I did not bother disabling squid and notes,

2.2.19pre6aa1 degraded performance for me...

2001-01-08 Thread Sasi Peter
...compared to 2.2.18pre19. I use the IDE patch for my CMD648 card, and also 0.90 RAID. What I have now (2.2.19pre6aa1+ide-1221): [root@iq /root]# hdparm /dev/hd[aceg] /dev/hda: multcount= 16 (on) I/O support = 1 (32-bit) unmaskirq= 1 (on) using_dma= 1 (on) keepsettings =

2.2.19pre6aa1 degraded performance for me...

2001-01-08 Thread Sasi Peter
...compared to 2.2.18pre19. I use the IDE patch for my CMD648 card, and also 0.90 RAID. What I have now (2.2.19pre6aa1+ide-1221): [root@iq /root]# hdparm /dev/hd[aceg] /dev/hda: multcount= 16 (on) I/O support = 1 (32-bit) unmaskirq= 1 (on) using_dma= 1 (on) keepsettings =

Re: 2.2.19pre6aa1 degraded performance for me...

2001-01-08 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:46:29PM +0100, Sasi Peter wrote: What I had w/2.2.18pre19 (+raid+ide): ~80MB more in cache and ~80MB swapped out (eg. currently unused notes server and squid) There is enough of swap over 3 disks (like the raid), so I did not bother disabling squid and notes, since

Re: 2.2.19pre6aa1 degraded performance for me...

2001-01-08 Thread Sasi Peter
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:46:29PM +0100, Sasi Peter wrote: What I had w/2.2.18pre19 (+raid+ide): ~80MB more in cache and ~80MB swapped out (eg. currently unused notes server and squid) There is enough of swap over 3 disks (like the raid), so