On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 09:09 -0700, bugme-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Should we consider, that such a difference is normal. You suggest that before > the kernel was dangerous at writing data? It's caching too much streaming data, yes. The danger is largely the amount of data you lose on a crash and mismanagement of the cache starving other applications. It's not that much of a problem. At an estimated write speed of ~70MB/s your 1GB of data is only around 15s to effect a full writeout. > So unpacking linux kernel (for example) is 5x times slower and it is not a > problem. That's just new way of caching data? We seldom see crashes (thanks to > linux) and we have power supply. There are many factors that could account for that. > I'd like testing on same hardware windows to see its behaviour and speed. > Anyway thanks for the clarifying of cache: write through. As you say, it was > not evident. > > So, now, what can we do to keep 2.6.21 behaviour? That's for a mail system > writing lots of little files and performance matters too. Well, initially, I'd try a benchmark that simulates the actual problem, like postmark. A streaming write tells you very little about the entire system performance under a mail server type load. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
