Re: Disk performance degradation

From: Stefano Rivoir (s.rivoir@gts.it)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 03:50:49 EST

Next message: John Bradford: "Re: [2.6 patch] let broken drivers depend on BROKEN{,ON_SMP}"
Previous message: Marc-Christian Petersen: "Re: [PATCH] O11int for interactivity"
In reply to: Voluspa: "Re: Disk performance degradation"
Next in thread: Andrew Morton: "Re: Disk performance degradation"
Reply: Andrew Morton: "Re: Disk performance degradation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Voluspa wrote:

> On 2003-07-29 12:00:06 Stefano Rivoir wrote:
>
>
>>Is there something I'm missing?!
>
>
> No, you are not ;-) You can reclaim some speed by doing a "hdparm -a
> 512". See thread for explanation (it's the borked value for readahead):

Thanks for the hint. This seems to make things a little better, but I'm
still far away from 2.4 performances. I thought that anticipatory sched
could be part of the problem, and booting with elevator=deadline
does a little better... but using 2.4 is completely another thing.
By the way, -a 512 vs -a 8 is a kernel "change" or an hdpam one?

Bye

-- Stefano RIVOIR GTS Srl

- 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/

Next message: John Bradford: "Re: [2.6 patch] let broken drivers depend on BROKEN{,ON_SMP}"
Previous message: Marc-Christian Petersen: "Re: [PATCH] O11int for interactivity"
In reply to: Voluspa: "Re: Disk performance degradation"
Next in thread: Andrew Morton: "Re: Disk performance degradation"
Reply: Andrew Morton: "Re: Disk performance degradation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:44 EST