On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 17:30 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 16:20:32 +0000 (UTC) > JB <jb.1234abcd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Alan Cox <alan <at> lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes: Alan! Good lord, it's been years, dude... Too many years since ALS. Too many years not making it to LinuxWorld (for me). Sigh... > > > ... > > > Equally if Fedora has soem crappy background app that keeps writing > > > little bits of pointless data to the disk every second that'll do the job > > > nicely too. > > > > I think you did not make this comment out of the blue ? > I've not looked into F15 disk performance, and as I never plan to run > FC15 I doubt I ever will. I'm skipping this release. Do you really feel this is wise? I test every Fedora release defensively. I want to know what they are screwing up before it's cast in stone and I get burned by it down the road. F15 is certainly building up a list on my shit-list already. I treat Ubuntu the same way. Test the 6 month on at least one machine after giving it a month for the dirt and debris to settle. If you look back through this list you'll find one of my rants on preupgrade (sucks less? sucks more?) Preupgrade basically destroyed a machine under me thanks to (I believe) a dependency conflict with avidmux that it failed to catch and that "yum distro-sync" caught and handled gracefully on another machine that survived the upgrade. They've also screwed up IPv6 autoconf over bridges needed for virtual machines (mentioned in the aforementioned thread) and I'm about to file a bug report on that. (Ok, ok... Messing with IPv6. Now THAT really pisses me off...) So far, I haven't experienced any disk performance degradation but I'll start checking (on the machines that survived the upgrade... Sigh...). One of them is one of my development engines with a lot of memory, a lot of virtual machines and a whole lotta load. It better work and better work good. They've done enough in there to give it a careful look-over even if it's on a machine you don't care about. I'm really REALLY unhappy with systemd and the machine that got slagged, ATM. It's dumping me in "Emergency Mode" and running "systemctl default" reports it could not bring up the method "Transaction would be destructive." like what the hell is THAT??? I'm withholding judgment but feel like systemd has the makings of the biggest steaming pile since the early days of NetworkMangler but I'm not reaching for the wooden stake and mallet just yet. Since the early days of NetworkMangler, I've even done some work on the NetworkManager plugins (vpnc and openswan). Even steaming piles can fertilize productive end results. But, then again, I'm old school. Give me scripts I can edit and debug. Don't cripple my system with binaries that fsck-up and don't give me coherent errors. > I can't specifically say FC15 has that problem but its something I've > seen chasing down I/O performance problems on systems. It doesn't > take much to give a disk a pile of extra seeks to do and that hurts > because seek times haven't changed in years and are now relatively very > expensive. I've seen crypto do this or some configurations of raid and MD. Your absolutely correct. I've seen a change in an order of magnitude there just from minor tweaks and changes. Long gone are the days we worried about and tweaked the interleave of drives for the spindle speed. The concept and effects remain with us and the impact remains the same. > > So why not bring it (them) into the light and knock around a bit ? > > Btw, would that apply to kernel daemons as well ? > I've no interest in Fedora 15 and pinning it down is a fairly big job > involving various re-installs. > > Also it'd be interesting to know if you kept the OS default partitioning scheme > > (in which case the Fedora install would likely have an LVM layer the Ubuntu one > > would not.) > > > > Yes, defaults. > Could be. Still fair benchmark because Fedora configures the disks that > way default. Yeah... Would also be interesting to compare a fresh install to an upgrade. > Easy way to check - go do two installs on a box similar to the Phoronix > one and see what you get if you want to find out. > Alan Regards, Mike -- Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@xxxxxxxxxxxx /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0x674627FF | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
