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.
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,
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
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()
> >
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
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
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo