Subject: Re: test kernel for cobalt
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Andy Ruhl <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/26/2006 20:57:44
On 5/26/06, Markus W Kilbinger <email@example.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "Izumi" =3D=3D Izumi Tsutsui <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> this additional gt.c patch seems to improve ata/ide disk
> >> performance (partially), but seems to decrease network (tlp0 in
> >> my case) performance.
> Izumi> Hmm. I've tested GENERIC kernels (updated today) with my
> Izumi> local patch, but I can't see network (tlp0) performance
> Izumi> decrease on my RaQ2: ---
> Izumi> [...]
> Izumi> Summary: ---
> Izumi> w/o gt.c change: ttcp-t: 16777216 bytes in 3.57 real
> Izumi> seconds =3D 4583.46 KB/sec +++ w/ gt.c change: ttcp-t:
> Izumi> 16777216 bytes in 3.44 real seconds =3D 4758.06 KB/sec +++
> Izumi> w/o gt.c change: ttcp-r: 16777216 bytes in 3.49 real
> Izumi> seconds =3D 4687.96 KB/sec +++ w/ gt.c change: ttcp-r:
> Izumi> 16777216 bytes in 3.47 real seconds =3D 4726.09 KB/sec +++
> Izumi> ---
> You are right: I get similar results with a generic kernel on my
> qube2, no performance decrease if your gt.c patch is activated.
> The general decrease of network performance in my formerly reported
> results seem to be related to the activated pf (especially due to
> scrub rules).
> Izumi> If there is no objection, I'll commit these changes in a
> Izumi> few days.
> So, no objection from this/my side ...
My performance data is similar enough to be called the same. Sorry I
didn't take the time to capture it all.
My kernel is still running (from last week) and I have had no problems.
Is this only going to -current?
Thanks for your work!