Subject: Re: wiki page (was: Re: [linux-audio-user] dipping toes in 2.6 waters)
From: Lee Revell (rlrevell_AT_joe-job.com)
Date: Tue Aug 10 2004 - 03:03:12 EEST
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 19:23, Florin Andrei wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 13:48, Florian Schmidt wrote:
>
> > Hmm, in my case the maximum value i can use is 128, and i cannot see a
> > difference between 128 and 16 either. It didn't do harm.
>
> Maybe it vastly depends on the workload? You know, like writing a tiny
> 44.1/16/2 audio stream to disk versus writing a huge raw video stream
> (or a large database workload).
>
> What was your disk workload?
I tried every disk torture benchmark I could think of - bonnie++,
sysbench, dbench, iozone. I also tried stressing the CPU/scheduler with
parallel builds and CPU stress tests. Stressing the system increases
the average latency slightly (I have graphs at
http://www.members.dca.net/rlrevell/testresults/) but does not affect
the worst case at all. I am guessing whatever code path is involved in
the higher latencies is not filesystem-related.
The 128 vs 1024 default has to do with whether 48-bit addressing is
enabled. This will be enabled for larger disks (120GB+?). So, the size
of your disk affects the maximum amount of IO that can be in flight at
once. This was covered in one of the recent lkml threads, check the
archives.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Aug 10 2004 - 03:07:07 EEST