Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:07:01 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: clarification about redhat and vm |
| |
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 05:46:33PM +0100, Wilhelm Nuesser wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: > > >>"If redhat doesn't use the -aa VM " was a short form of "if redhat > >>cannot see the goodness of all the bugfixing work that happened between > >>the 2.4.9 VM and any current branch 2.4, and so if they keep shipping > >>2.4.9 VM as the best one for DBMS and critical VM apps like the SAP > >>benchmark". > >> > > > >The RH VM is totally unrelated to the crap in 2.4.9 vanilla. The SAP comment > >begs a question. 2.4.10 seems to have problems remembering to actually > >do fsync()'s. How much of your SAP benchmark is from fsync's that dont > >happen ? Do you get the same values with 2.4.18-aa ? > > > Well, basically we checked the thing many times with quite different > kernels. > Our current tests - which show exactly the same results as > 2.4.[10,14,15] - run > on the new "official" SuSE kernel 2.4.16. Again, we observe a > performance increase > in high swap situations of about a factor of ten compared to 2.4.[7,9]. > > IMO, this shows that errors like fsync etc. are _not_ responsible for > the improved > performance.
and I assume you were using either ext2 or reiserfs anyways, so the fsync problem never affected you since the first place (also with older kernels) I believe.
Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |