On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 11:51:33AM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 02:21:02PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > I'd be interested in benchmark runs comparing 4k, 8k, 16k, 32k, and > > 64k, if you would, please. > > vary kernel page size or ext2 block size or both together? Well, varying both, actually. I'm curious whether it is a large block size, or block_size == page_size that really matters. The reason why I care is because it makes a difference as to what the default mke2fs hueristics should be. (By the way, even without hacking e2fsprogs at all, if you use mke2fs -Tlargefile, it will use a default blocksize == pagesize, and this currently bypasses the EXT2_MAX_BLOCK_SIZE check entirely.) The question is whether or not this is really optimal behaviour.... It probably is, but it would be good to know for soon. > re-aim-7 benchmark or something different? > (and please don't say "dbench" :^) Dbench is a silly benchmark.... > 32k is not possible in the kernel. Could use 64k. > > Was any patches necessary for the ia64 kernel before the block sizes > > > 8k started working for you? > > nope. :^) > Just twiddle the CONFIG_IA64_PAGE_SIZE_* parameters if one wants 64KB. > 16KB is the default. Good to know, thanks. - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Wed Jul 30 17:19:25 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:16 EST