Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21
From: Andrew Morton (akpm_at_osdl.org)
Date: 08/05/03
- Previous message: Nick Piggin: "Re: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity"
- In reply to: Martin Konold: "Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21"
- Next in thread: Oleg Drokin: "Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21"
- Reply: Oleg Drokin: "Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21"
- Reply: Peter Chubb: "Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:26:54 -0700 To: Martin Konold <martin.konold@erfrakon.de>
Martin Konold <martin.konold@erfrakon.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> when using 2.6.0.test1 on a high end laptop (P-IV 2.2 GHz, 1GB RAM) I notice
> very significant slowdown in interactive usage compared to 2.4.21.
>
> The difference is most easily seen when switching folders in kmail. While
> 2.4.21 is instantaneous 2.6.0.test1 shows the clock for about 2-3 seconds.
>
> I am using maildir folders on reiserfs.
There is a bug in old kmail versions wherein they do silly things if the
filesystem alleges that its optimum I/O size is much larger than 4k.
2.6's reiserfs tell applications that its optimum IO size is 128k, and the
bug bites.
Try mounting your reiserfs filesystems with the "nolargeio" option.
A `mount -o remount,nolargeio' will probably work too.
Please test that, send a report, and if it fixes it, upgrade your kmail.
Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Nick Piggin: "Re: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity"
- In reply to: Martin Konold: "Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21"
- Next in thread: Oleg Drokin: "Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21"
- Reply: Oleg Drokin: "Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21"
- Reply: Peter Chubb: "Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|