Andrew,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:05:49AM -0500, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> at 32k all the time? That would explain why these results are flat, while I
> am getting a wider range.
I think this is a red herring, the chunk size code did accidentally
get backed out of CVS for a while. But variable chunk sizes were
certainly going into the kernel when we did the development.
> Joe, are you absolutely sure these tests had the disk cache disabled? That's
> the only hardware thing I can think of that would make a difference.
Absolutely sure. Those figures were for a pair of PVs that were
sharing an IDE cable so I can certainly get things moving faster.
> It seems we can go 'round and 'round to no end, as long as we have HW
> differences, so I have asked for use on a OSDL system we can both run on.
> This way there is no difference in our HW. I'll let you know when I hear
> back from them, so we can both test on the same system (if you want to).
Excellent idea, we should probably think up some better benchmarks too.
- Joe
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:20 EST