[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ae6823b2-09ad-4e9d-ad7e-40922cf9b6c9@default>
Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 14:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk, ngupta@...are.org, JBeulich@...ell.com,
chris.mason@...cle.com, kurt.hackel@...cle.com,
dave.mccracken@...cle.com, npiggin@...e.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, riel@...hat.com
Subject: RE: Frontswap [PATCH 0/4] (was Transcendent Memory): overview
> From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pavel@....cz]
>
> > > So what needs to be said here is 'frontswap is XX times faster than
> > > swap_ops based solution on workload YY'.
> >
> > Are you asking me to demonstrate that swap-to-hypervisor-RAM is
> > faster than swap-to-disk?
>
> I would like comparison of swap-to-frontswap vs. swap-to-RAMdisk.
> Pavel
Well, it's not really apples-to-apples because swap-to-RAMdisk
is copying to a chunk of RAM with a known permanently-fixed size
so it SHOULD be faster than swap-to-hypervisor, and should
*definitely* be faster than swap-to-in-kernel-compressed-RAM
but I suppose it is still an interesting comparison. I'll
see what I can do, but it will probably be a couple days to
figure out how to measure it (e.g. without accidentally measuring
any swap-to-disk).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists