On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 22:21:12 +0200 Jörn Engel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 August 2007 20:37:14 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> >
> > Guess I should throw in a kernel compile test as well, just to get a
> > feel for the performance.
>
> Three runs each of noatime, relatime and atime, both with cold caches
> and with warm caches. Scripts below. Run on a Thinkpad T40, 1.5GHz,
> 2GiB RAM, 60GB 2.5" IDE disk, ext3.
>
> Biggest difference between atime and noatime (median run, cold cache) is
> ~2.3%, nowhere near the numbers claimed by Ingo. Ingo, how did you
> measure 10% and more?
Ingo had CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y, which generates heaps more writeout,
but no additional atime updates.
Ingo had a faster computer ;) That will generate many more MB/sec
write traffic, so the cost of those atime seeks becomes proportionally
higher. Basically: you're CPU-limited, Ingo is seek-limited.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
