This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Thomas Koenig wrote: > On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 11:45 +0100, Angelo Graziosi wrote: > >> I do not think to my eyes... (ref.[1]) >> > > Buffering is ok now: > > > > Offhand, I don't see what else we could do (except maybe increase > our buffer size). > > I tested increasing the buffer size a year or so ago, and didn't see much benefit. Of course, at that time we still had plenty of issues with excessive flushing (wouldn't surprise me if we still do). However, increasing buffer size might help on NFS, or does the kernel coalesce I/O before sending it over the wire? In addition to that, exotic stuff like Lustre on Cray XT wants buffers on the order of 10 MB, though I think that's quite excessive for general purpose usage. One thing that could help performance on some seeky workloads would be to have multiple cache buckets, like a direct-mapped cache. To which extent these would help outside contrived microbenchmarks I don't know. -- Janne Blomqvist
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |