[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090116065546.GJ31013@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:55:47 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
sfr@...b.auug.org.au, matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com,
chinang.ma@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sharad.c.tripathi@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
andi.kleen@...el.com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
harita.chilukuri@...el.com, douglas.w.styner@...el.com,
peter.xihong.wang@...el.com, hubert.nueckel@...el.com,
chris.mason@...cle.com, srostedt@...hat.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, andrew.vasquez@...gic.com,
anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Mainline kernel OLTP performance update
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 05:46:23PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Intel's OLTP shows SLQB is "neutral" to SLAB. That is, literally within
> their measurement confidence interval. If it comes down to it, I think we
> could get them to do more runs to narrow that down, but we're talking a
> couple of tenths of a percent already.
I think I can speak with some measure of confidence for at least the
OLTP-testing part of my company when I say that I have no objection to
Nick's planned merge scheme.
I believe the kernel benchmark group have also done some testing with
SLQB and have generally positive things to say about it (Yanmin added to
the gargantuan cc).
Did slabtop get fixed to work with SLQB?
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists