Re: [rtl] Low-latency patches working GREAT (<2.9ms audio latency), see testresults ,but ISDN troubl

yodaiken@fsmlabs.com
Sat, 28 Aug 1999 17:55:10 -0600

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Steve Dodd: "Re: modutils check for SMP"
Previous message: Jeff DeFouw: "[2.3.15] parport misdetected"
In reply to: Nimrod Zimerman: "PLIP patch for 2.3.15 (no-irq, parport api)"

On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 10:40:57PM +0200, Benno Senoner wrote:
> - The disk performance decreases by 10-25% when I increase the CPU load in
> the "latencytest" bench.
> (On light CPU load there are no disk performance differences,
> maybe this is related to higher scheduling overhead)
>
> I think most of us want to have these "low-latency" features in the upcoming
> 2.4 kernel since it will make Linux a very good _MULTIMEDIA_OS_.

A 25% disk i/o decrease is very serious. Lets get some serious feedback
from people running internet and database servers before we blow off
the server users in order to compete with BEOS.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Steve Dodd: "Re: modutils check for SMP"
Previous message: Jeff DeFouw: "[2.3.15] parport misdetected"
In reply to: Nimrod Zimerman: "PLIP patch for 2.3.15 (no-irq, parport api)"