Re: Kernel 2.2.19 crashes, 2.4.4 bad performance
On Tue, 15 May 2001, T. Weyergraf wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> [... stuff deleted ...]
>
>
> > The VM has been reworked quite a bit. Did you hit swap during any of your
> > tests? Also, is this EV6 or EV67?
>
> Reworked is good - it's rather a total rewrite ;-) The VM is one of my suspects, but
> I also question the new scheduling policies.
> As all UP2000's being EV-67 ( or 68 ), mine is a EV-67, 667Mhz and 2Mbytes L2.
Not all UP2000s run with EV67 (or 68), there are some that have
EV6 slotBs, yours is a 67 though.
>
> Good, i'll try that. I obviously have CONFIG_RTC set. On that issue: It used to be the
> case, that the Alphas encountered clock-skews without that option set in earlier 2.2 kernels,
> that could be overcome by setting RTC. Is that resolved ? Having the correct time is
> quite critical in my setup ( time-based services running across several NFS exports ).
If I remember correctly RTC in 2.2 is broken for SMP....did you have 2
CPUs? Don't remember seeing that.
> > What other cards do you have in the system? Oh, also, bear in mind that
> > the Adaptec driver has changed in 2.4.x, IIRC, so that may explain things
> > by itself :-)
>
> It's 3 adaptecs in there, plus one 3COM networking card ( 905B ). I've seperately ran
> tests on all harddrives, using bonnie, hdparm and my own stuff. All results indicated no
> difference in drive performance and associated CPU consumption. All disks are in fact
> SCSI disks. I had one IDE drive with an SCSI-to-IDE adaptor being connected to it;s
> own adaptec ( since it can't do TCQ ), but that was completely disabled during the tests.
> I am aware, that there is a completely new aic driver in 2.4.4, which gave the reason
> to test disk performance.
> I do like the fact, that the new driver is apparently able to determine the optimum TCQ depth
> during run-time. However, i prefer to set things via boot-parameters. Anybody ever
> figured out, how to do that with the new driver ?
There's two adaptec drivers in 2.4 right? One from Adaptec and then the
original one (which is no longer maintained). Haven't even tried to
compilethe adaptec version yet.....perhaps that could be one of the
differences??
--rdp
--
Rich Payne
rpayne@alphalinux.org www.alphalinux.org
Reply to: