On Tue, May 29 2001, Fabio Riccardi wrote:
> yes I get a performance improvement of about 5%
Nice
> could you port your patches to the 2.4.5-ac4 kernel? I'd love to see if the ac
> improvements and yours add to each other.
Sure:
*.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/axboe/patches/2.4.5-ac4/
On Tue, May 29 2001, Fabio Riccardi wrote:
yes I get a performance improvement of about 5%
Nice
could you port your patches to the 2.4.5-ac4 kernel? I'd love to see if the ac
improvements and yours add to each other.
Sure:
*.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/axboe/patches/2.4.5-ac4/
--
yes I get a performance improvement of about 5%
could you port your patches to the 2.4.5-ac4 kernel? I'd love to see if the ac
improvements and yours add to each other.
Thanks,
- Fabio
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, May 29 2001, Fabio Riccardi wrote:
> > "Leeuw van der, Tim" wrote:
> >
> > >
On Tue, May 29 2001, Fabio Riccardi wrote:
> "Leeuw van der, Tim" wrote:
>
> > But the claim was that 2.4.5-ac2 is faster than 2.4.5 plain, so which
> > changes are in 2.4.5-ac2 that would make it faster than 2.4.5 plain? Also, I
> > don't know if 2.4.5-ac1 is as fast as 2.4.5-ac2 for Fabio. If
On Tue, May 29 2001, Fabio Riccardi wrote:
Leeuw van der, Tim wrote:
But the claim was that 2.4.5-ac2 is faster than 2.4.5 plain, so which
changes are in 2.4.5-ac2 that would make it faster than 2.4.5 plain? Also, I
don't know if 2.4.5-ac1 is as fast as 2.4.5-ac2 for Fabio. If not, then
yes I get a performance improvement of about 5%
could you port your patches to the 2.4.5-ac4 kernel? I'd love to see if the ac
improvements and yours add to each other.
Thanks,
- Fabio
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Tue, May 29 2001, Fabio Riccardi wrote:
Leeuw van der, Tim wrote:
But the
Marcelo Tosatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to confirm this is what happening in your case: Can you please try
> 2.4.4-ac5 and see if the _swap usage_ is still as badly?
2.4.4-ac5 seams to use the swap about as much as 2.4.4, which is less than
2.4.5-ac2. In my simple "freesly boot
On Tue, 29 May 2001, André Dahlqvist wrote:
> André Dahlqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I agree. Kernels after 2.4.4 uses a *lot* more swap for me, which I guess
> > might be part of the reason for the slowdown.
>
> Following up on myself, here are some numbers:
>
> Freshly booted
André Dahlqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree. Kernels after 2.4.4 uses a *lot* more swap for me, which I guess
> might be part of the reason for the slowdown.
Following up on myself, here are some numbers:
Freshly booted 2.4.4 with X and Mozilla running, 'free' outputs this:
Marcelo Tosatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It did not fixed any interactivity problem.
I agree. Kernels after 2.4.4 uses a *lot* more swap for me, which I guess
might be part of the reason for the slowdown.
--
André Dahlqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Leeuw van der, Tim wrote:
> The VM in 2.4.5 might be largely 'fixed' and I know that the VM changes in
> -ac were considered to be but still broken, however for me they worked
> better than what is in 2.4.5.
The VM changes in 2.4.5 fixed a very serious performance problem.
-Original Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 12:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.5-ac2
> But the claim was that 2.4.5-ac2 is faster than 2.4.5 plain, so which
> changes are in 2.4.5-ac2 that woul
> But the claim was that 2.4.5-ac2 is faster than 2.4.5 plain, so which
> changes are in 2.4.5-ac2 that would make it faster than 2.4.5 plain? Also, I
> don't know if 2.4.5-ac1 is as fast as 2.4.5-ac2 for Fabio. If not, then it's
> a change in the 2.4.5-ac2 changelog. If it is as fast, it is one
Alan Cox wrote:
> > Performance is back to that of 2.4.2-ac26, and stability is a lot >
better. Under
> > heavy FS pressure 2.4.5-ac2 is about 5-10% faster than vanilla 2.4.5, >
the aa1,2
> > kernels have the same performance of vanilla 2.4.5.
> >
> > Which one of your changes affected
Alan Cox wrote:
Performance is back to that of 2.4.2-ac26, and stability is a lot
better. Under
heavy FS pressure 2.4.5-ac2 is about 5-10% faster than vanilla 2.4.5,
the aa1,2
kernels have the same performance of vanilla 2.4.5.
Which one of your changes affected performance so
-Original Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 12:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.5-ac2
But the claim was that 2.4.5-ac2 is faster than 2.4.5 plain, so which
changes are in 2.4.5-ac2 that would make
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Leeuw van der, Tim wrote:
The VM in 2.4.5 might be largely 'fixed' and I know that the VM changes in
-ac were considered to be but still broken, however for me they worked
better than what is in 2.4.5.
The VM changes in 2.4.5 fixed a very serious performance problem.
Marcelo Tosatti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It did not fixed any interactivity problem.
I agree. Kernels after 2.4.4 uses a *lot* more swap for me, which I guess
might be part of the reason for the slowdown.
--
André Dahlqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Tue, 29 May 2001, André Dahlqvist wrote:
André Dahlqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. Kernels after 2.4.4 uses a *lot* more swap for me, which I guess
might be part of the reason for the slowdown.
Following up on myself, here are some numbers:
Freshly booted 2.4.4 with X
Marcelo Tosatti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to confirm this is what happening in your case: Can you please try
2.4.4-ac5 and see if the _swap usage_ is still as badly?
2.4.4-ac5 seams to use the swap about as much as 2.4.4, which is less than
2.4.5-ac2. In my simple freesly boot kernel,
actually, it happens on ext2, also. it was fun trying to switch back to 2.2
after converting raid devs for 2.4 and trashing my emergency boot disk. i
was finally able to restore from tape by mounting -o sync. there was still
some minor corruption caught by fsck, though.
the new sym53c875 driver
Ok, things are fast again now! :))
Performance is back to that of 2.4.2-ac26, and stability is a lot better. Under
heavy FS pressure 2.4.5-ac2 is about 5-10% faster than vanilla 2.4.5, the aa1,2
kernels have the same performance of vanilla 2.4.5.
Which one of your changes affected performance
i haven't had any reiserfs crashes on my alpha, but restoring a backup of a
debian installation to a reiserfs partition doesn't quite work. untarring a
linux kernel tarball to the fs works, does work though. i get these kernel
messages:
May 27 23:28:47 zero kernel: is_leaf: free space seems
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/alan/2.4/
Intermediate diffs are available from
http://www.bzimage.org
In terms of going through the code audit almost all the sound drivers still
need fixing to lock against format changes during a
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/alan/2.4/
Intermediate diffs are available from
http://www.bzimage.org
In terms of going through the code audit almost all the sound drivers still
need fixing to lock against format changes during a
i haven't had any reiserfs crashes on my alpha, but restoring a backup of a
debian installation to a reiserfs partition doesn't quite work. untarring a
linux kernel tarball to the fs works, does work though. i get these kernel
messages:
May 27 23:28:47 zero kernel: is_leaf: free space seems
Ok, things are fast again now! :))
Performance is back to that of 2.4.2-ac26, and stability is a lot better. Under
heavy FS pressure 2.4.5-ac2 is about 5-10% faster than vanilla 2.4.5, the aa1,2
kernels have the same performance of vanilla 2.4.5.
Which one of your changes affected performance
actually, it happens on ext2, also. it was fun trying to switch back to 2.2
after converting raid devs for 2.4 and trashing my emergency boot disk. i
was finally able to restore from tape by mounting -o sync. there was still
some minor corruption caught by fsck, though.
the new sym53c875 driver
28 matches
Mail list logo
