Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:49:31 -0400 (EDT) | From | Chuck Lever <> | Subject | Re: 2.3.10 performance question... |
| |
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 kernel@llamas.org wrote: > I ran a simulation test of Internet traffic to a caching proxy server. The > test stressed disk activity (more writes than reads), network traffic > (about 20mb/s sustained), and to some extent CPU (about 20% utilization) > > Running 200k requests (admittedly not a lot) with 100 concurrent > connections. > > The 2.2.9 kernel (I've yet to try 2.2.10) was about 75% faster than the > 2.3.10 kernel. This was pretty much exactly opposite of what I expected. > > Can anyone shed some light on this? Is it something as simple as turning > off some compile time options in the 2.3.x kernel series that hamper > performance?
did the 2.3.10 run show more CPU idle than the 2.2.9 run? especially on write-intensive workloads, the 2.3.7+ kernels seem to wait way more often than they should. i haven't been able to track down exactly where the extra waits are occurring, but it appears that one problem is balance_dirty() in fs/buffer.c: it seems to wait far more often than is needed.
classic disclaimer: the 2.3.x kernels are beta quality, and they need some performance tuning because of the deep architectural changes they have undergone recently.
- Chuck Lever -- corporate: <chuckl@netscape.com> personal: <chucklever@netscape.net> or <cel@monkey.org>
The Linux Scalability project: http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/linux-scalability/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |