On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:17:26PM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Darrick J. Wong
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:30:03AM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
> >> HI, all guys.
> >>
> >> any comments or suggestions?
> >
> > Why did ffsb drop from 924 transactions/sec
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Darrick J. Wong
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:30:03AM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
>> HI, all guys.
>>
>> any comments or suggestions?
>
> Why did ffsb drop from 924 transactions/sec to 322?
It is maybe that some noise operations impact on it. I am doing one
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Darrick J. Wong
darrick.w...@oracle.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:30:03AM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
HI, all guys.
any comments or suggestions?
Why did ffsb drop from 924 transactions/sec to 322?
It is maybe that some noise operations impact on it. I
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:17:26PM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Darrick J. Wong
darrick.w...@oracle.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:30:03AM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
HI, all guys.
any comments or suggestions?
Why did ffsb drop from 924
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:30:03AM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
> HI, all guys.
>
> any comments or suggestions?
Why did ffsb drop from 924 transactions/sec to 322?
--D
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
> > HI, guys
> >
> > THe perf testing is done separately with fs_mark,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:30:03AM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
HI, all guys.
any comments or suggestions?
Why did ffsb drop from 924 transactions/sec to 322?
--D
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Zhi Yong Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
HI, guys
THe perf testing is done separately
HI, all guys.
any comments or suggestions?
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
> HI, guys
>
> THe perf testing is done separately with fs_mark, fio, ffsb and
> compilebench in one kvm guest.
>
> Below is the performance testing report for hot tracking, and no obvious
> perf
HI, all guys.
any comments or suggestions?
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Zhi Yong Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
HI, guys
THe perf testing is done separately with fs_mark, fio, ffsb and
compilebench in one kvm guest.
Below is the performance testing report for hot tracking, and no
HI, guys
THe perf testing is done separately with fs_mark, fio, ffsb and
compilebench in one kvm guest.
Below is the performance testing report for hot tracking, and no obvious
perf downgrade is found.
Note: original kernel means its source code is not changed;
kernel with enabled hot
HI, guys
THe perf testing is done separately with fs_mark, fio, ffsb and
compilebench in one kvm guest.
Below is the performance testing report for hot tracking, and no obvious
perf downgrade is found.
Note: original kernel means its source code is not changed;
kernel with enabled hot
From: Zhi Yong Wu
HI, guys,
Any comments or ideas are appreciated, thanks.
NOTE:
The patchset can be obtained via my kernel dev git on github:
git://github.com/wuzhy/kernel.git hot_tracking
If you're interested, you can also review them via
From: Zhi Yong Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
HI, guys,
Any comments or ideas are appreciated, thanks.
NOTE:
The patchset can be obtained via my kernel dev git on github:
git://github.com/wuzhy/kernel.git hot_tracking
If you're interested, you can also review them via
12 matches
Mail list logo
