Le Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:42:28 -0400 vous écriviez:

quoted text
> And this is what I was saying earlier, there is a trend to blame the 
> benchmark when in fact the same benchmark runs well on 2.4. 

As I mentioned, it looks like 2.4 actually buffers write data on RAID-1
which is inherently bad (after all if I do RAID-1 it's for the sake of
data integrity, and write caching just counters that).
However, how bad dd may be, it reflects broadly my problem : on small
systems using software RAID, IO is overall way better with 2.4 than
2.6, especially NFS thruput.
Though I can substantially enhance 2.6 performance through tweaking
(playing with read ahead, disk queue length etc), it still lags behind
2.4 with defaults settings by a clear margin (10% or more).
This isn't true - fortunately - of larger systems with 12, 24, 48 disks
drives, hardware RAID, Fibre Channel and al. 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Florac               www.intellique.com   
--------------------------------------------------
--
unsubscribe notice
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/