From: Austin Gonyou <austin@digitalroadkill.net>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <roy@karlsbakk.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again
Date: 24 May 2002 13:03:54 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1022263434.9591.60.camel@UberGeek> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <433620000.1022262234@flay>
On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 12:43, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > I assume that you mean by "not worth using x86" you're referring to say,
> > degraded performance over other platforms? Well...if you talk
> > price/performance, using x86 is perfect in those terms since you can buy
> > more boxes and have a more fluid architecture, rather than building a
> > monolithic system. Monolithic systems aren't always the best. Just look
> > at Fermilab!
>
> Well, to be honest, with the current mainline kernel on >4Gb x86 machines,
> we're not talking about slow performance on mainline kernel, we're talking
> about "falls flat on it's face, in a jibbering heap" (if you actually stress the
> machine with real workloads). If we apply a bunch of patches, we can get
> the ostritch to just about fly (most of the time), but we're working towards good
> performance too ... it's not that far off.
Understood, I think that's everyone's goal in the end anyway.
> Of course, this means that we actually have to get these patches accepted
> for them to be of much use ;-). -aa kernel works best in this area, on the
> workloads I've been looking at so far ... this area is very much "under active
> development" at the moment.
>
> M.
Yes, After using a -AA series, then recompiling Glibc with some
optimizations, kind of re-purifying the system a few times.
Then applying some Oracle patches, (to fix some Oracle bugs in our
environment) then voila! We can have a *very* fast Linux box on 4P or
8P with 4-8GB RAM with an uptime of >60 days. I've never a box longer
than that to prove otherwise, but it was stable from a *production*
point of view.
Also, adjusting the bdflush parms greatly increases stability I've found
in this respect. On top of all of that though, using XFS with increased
logbuffers and LVM or EVMS to do striping really improved performance
with IO too.
Problem is, my tests are *unofficial* but I plan to do something perhaps
at OSDL and see what we can show in a max single-box config with real
hardware, etc.
Anyway, I digress.
Austin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-24 18:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-23 13:11 [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 14:54 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-23 16:29 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 16:46 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 10:04 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-24 14:35 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 19:32 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-30 10:29 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-30 19:28 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-31 16:56 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-31 18:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-06-18 11:26 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-06-18 19:42 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-19 11:26 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-07-10 7:50 ` [2.4 BUFFERING BUG] (was [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again) Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-07-10 8:05 ` Andrew Morton
2002-07-10 8:14 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-08-28 9:28 ` [BUG+FIX] 2.4 buggercache sucks Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-08-28 15:30 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-29 8:00 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-08-29 13:42 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-30 9:21 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-08-30 17:19 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-30 18:49 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-24 15:11 ` [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again Alan Cox
2002-05-24 15:53 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 16:14 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-24 16:31 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 17:30 ` Austin Gonyou
2002-05-24 17:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 18:03 ` Austin Gonyou [this message]
2002-05-24 18:10 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 18:29 ` 2.4 Kernel Perf discussion [Was Re: [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again] Austin Gonyou
2002-05-24 19:01 ` Stephen Frost
2002-05-27 9:24 ` [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again Marco Colombo
2002-05-27 22:24 ` Austin Gonyou
2002-05-27 23:08 ` Austin Gonyou
2002-05-27 11:12 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-27 14:31 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-27 13:43 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 16:03 ` Johannes Erdfelt
2002-05-23 16:33 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 22:50 ` Luigi Genoni
2002-05-24 11:53 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 18:12 ` jlnance
2002-05-24 10:36 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-31 21:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-06-01 12:36 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1022263434.9591.60.camel@UberGeek \
--to=austin@digitalroadkill.net \
--cc=Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=roy@karlsbakk.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.