From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: 2.4.8-pre1 and dbench -20% throughput References: <01072822131300.00315@starship> <3B6369DE.F9085405@zip.com.au> <20010729231920.A10320@thunk.org> <3B657A6E.2487127F@osdlab.org> Reply-To: zlatko.calusic@iskon.hr From: Zlatko Calusic Date: 30 Jul 2001 21:39:22 +0200 In-Reply-To: <3B657A6E.2487127F@osdlab.org> ("Randy.Dunlap"'s message of "Mon, 30 Jul 2001 08:17:02 -0700") Message-ID: <87lml69pg5.fsf@atlas.iskon.hr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Randy.Dunlap" Cc: Theodore Tso , Andrew Morton , Daniel Phillips , Marcelo Tosatti , linux-mm@kvack.org, Rik van Riel , Mike Galbraith , Steven Cole , Roger Larsson List-ID: "Randy.Dunlap" writes: > Theodore Tso wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 11:41:50AM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > It would be very useful to have a standardised and very carefully > > > chosen set of tests which we could use for evaluating fs and kernel > > > performance. I'm not aware of anything suitable, really. It would > > > have to be a whole bunch of datapoints sprinkled throughout a > > > multidimesional space. That's what we do at present, but it's ad-hoc. > > > > All the gripes about dbench/netbench aside, one good thing about them > > is that they hit the filesystem with a large number of operations in > > parallel, which is what a fileserver under heavy load will see. > > Benchmarks like Andrew and Bonnie tend to have a much more serialized > > pattern of filesystem access. > > Is iozone (using threads) any better at this? > We are currently using iozone. > > And where can I find Zlatko's xmm program that Mike mentioned? > http://linux.inet.hr/ -- Zlatko -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/