Re: mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0

2001-01-21 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Vlad Bolkhovitine wrote: > > > > > > > You can see, mmap() read performance dropped significantly as > > > > well as read() one raised.

Re: mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0

2001-01-21 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Vlad Bolkhovitine wrote: You can see, mmap() read performance dropped significantly as well as read() one raised. Plus,

Re: mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0

2001-01-18 Thread Rik van Riel
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Vlad Bolkhovitine wrote: > > > > > You can see, mmap() read performance dropped significantly as > > > well as read() one raised. Plus, "interactivity" of 2.4.0 system > > > was much

Re: mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0

2001-01-18 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Vlad Bolkhovitine wrote: > > > You can see, mmap() read performance dropped significantly as > > well as read() one raised. Plus, "interactivity" of 2.4.0 system > > was much worse during mmap'ed test, than using read() > >

Re: mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0

2001-01-18 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Vlad Bolkhovitine wrote: You can see, mmap() read performance dropped significantly as well as read() one raised. Plus, "interactivity" of 2.4.0 system was much worse during mmap'ed test, than using read() (everything was

Re: mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0

2001-01-18 Thread Rik van Riel
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Vlad Bolkhovitine wrote: You can see, mmap() read performance dropped significantly as well as read() one raised. Plus, "interactivity" of 2.4.0 system was much worse during

Re: mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0

2001-01-17 Thread Rik van Riel
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Vlad Bolkhovitine wrote: > You can see, mmap() read performance dropped significantly as > well as read() one raised. Plus, "interactivity" of 2.4.0 system > was much worse during mmap'ed test, than using read() > (everything was quite smooth here). 2.4.0-test7 was badly >

Re: mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0

2001-01-14 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Vlad Bolkhovitine wrote: > After upgrade from 2.4.0-test7 to 2.4.0 while running tiotest v0.3.1 I found two > following problems. There have been quite a lot of things changed from 2.4.0-test7 to 2.4.0, so I'm not sure what caused the slowdown. Anyway, important VM

Re: mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0

2001-01-14 Thread Vlad Bolkhovitine
Tiotest/tiobench a new disk benchmark program written by a group of people led by Mika Kuoppala. AFAIK, it is the only disk IO test, which is able to use mmap(). You can find it on http://tiobench.sourceforge.net/ or http://www.icon.fi/~mak/tiotest/tiobench-0.3.1.tar.gz. Regards, Vlad Ray

Re: mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0

2001-01-14 Thread Vlad Bolkhovitine
Tiotest/tiobench a new disk benchmark program written by a group of people led by Mika Kuoppala. AFAIK, it is the only disk IO test, which is able to use mmap(). You can find it on http://tiobench.sourceforge.net/ or http://www.icon.fi/~mak/tiotest/tiobench-0.3.1.tar.gz. Regards, Vlad Ray

Re: mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0

2001-01-14 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Vlad Bolkhovitine wrote: After upgrade from 2.4.0-test7 to 2.4.0 while running tiotest v0.3.1 I found two following problems. There have been quite a lot of things changed from 2.4.0-test7 to 2.4.0, so I'm not sure what caused the slowdown. Anyway, important VM changes

mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0

2001-01-12 Thread Vlad Bolkhovitine
After upgrade from 2.4.0-test7 to 2.4.0 while running tiotest v0.3.1 I found two following problems. 1. Tiotest is compiled for mmap() usage and there is no swap on the system with ~200Mb free memory. Tiotest tries to create mmap'ed file with size ~memory_size*2 and soon after start gets killed

mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0

2001-01-12 Thread Vlad Bolkhovitine
After upgrade from 2.4.0-test7 to 2.4.0 while running tiotest v0.3.1 I found two following problems. 1. Tiotest is compiled for mmap() usage and there is no swap on the system with ~200Mb free memory. Tiotest tries to create mmap'ed file with size ~memory_size*2 and soon after start gets killed