Re: RFC: doubling IO_BUFSIZE

[Jim Meyering]

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Pádraig Brady <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 05/24/2014 06:32 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> It looks like it makes sense to double IO_BUFSIZE once again.
>> What do you think?
>
> +1
>
> Significant enough to bump up I think,
> and we never saw regressions with this size.
>
> Please amend the date etc. at the top of the comment too.
> Here are the results from non x86 worth adding I think:

Good point.  Done.

> POWER7 3.55GHz, revision 2.1 IBM,8231-E2B
>    1024=1.3 GB/s
>    2048=2.5 GB/s
>    4096=4.8 GB/s
>    8192=9.2 GB/s
>   16384=16.8 GB/s
>   32768=28.0 GB/s
>   65536=41.4 GB/s
>  131072=54.8 GB/s
>  262144=40.0 GB/s
>  524288=34.5 GB/s
> 1048576=36.5 GB/s

Nice numbers. It'd be interesting to see power consumption :-)
Can you determine RAM type and speed for that system?

> I have access to some NDA architectures and
> there was an increase in performance seen there also.

I'd like to see a column or two for modern ARM-based server systems.

Here's an updated patch. I'll update or remove the (RAM speed?)
part before pushing.

0001-cat-cp-split-use-a-larger-buffer-for-copying.patch
Description: Binary data