Title: Re: [Sisuite-devel] RE: e100 slowness with trunk
Great stuff Andrea - when I did the kernel config for x86_64, I was just using whatever's default.  Anyways glad that you figured it out.
 
We need to start stabilizing 3.7.3 for the imminent code freeze for OSCAR 5.0.  Are there any new features we want in 3.7.3 before we tag and release?
 
For me, I'd like to complete si_mkbootpackage such that it acts similarly to si_prepareclient.
 
Brian, how goes ia64?  We should try to bring it up to 2.6.12.2 prior to release.
 
Thanks,
 
Bernard


From: Finley, Brian E. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 09/04/2006 14:49
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bernard Li
Cc: sisuite-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Sisuite-devel] RE: e100 slowness with trunk

Heh, slob. 


--------------------------
Brian Elliott Finley
Linux Strategist, CIS
Desk: 630.252.4742
Mobile:  630.631.6621

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Righi
To: Bernard Li
CC: sisuite-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Finley, Brian E.
Sent: Sun Apr 09 16:47:13 2006
Subject: Re: [Sisuite-devel] RE: e100 slowness with trunk

Bernard,

stop it! I found the problem! :-)

It was the SLOB allocator (http://lwn.net/Articles/157944/); it's more
memory efficient than the default SLAB, but it seems that with this
allocator rsync becomes very very slow... so better to use SLAB (in fact
in the x86_64 config it is correctly enabled).

Moreover I checked in the trunk the 2.6.16.2 kernel (for i386 only).. it
has some fixes and I already did the work to properly configure it
during the tests of today...

Cheers,
-Andrea

PS I've also added a comment about SLOB/SLAB issue on wiki
(http://wiki.sisuite.org/BOELupdate)!

http://lwn.net/Articles/157944/

Bernard Li wrote:
> I'd rather not downgrade the kernel at this point - hopefully newer
> releases will fix this problem.
>
> rsync is currently at 2.6.7 (we're using 2.6.6), so after the svn
> server is back up I will try to see if that helps at all...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bernard
>
> P.S. Incidentally, I tested trunk with x86_64 with e1000 (I think)
> and it works perfectly fine, so I'm not really sure what's going
> on...
>

Reply via email to