Comment 3 for bug 338822

After you installed sreadahead, did you reboot twice and measure the second
time? I believe sreadahead needs to profile the boot the first time around.

On 09/01/2009 11:22 AM, Hernando Torque wrote:
> I cannot confirm your observation. I've 'bootcharted' two systems and
> with both sreadahead was slower than not using preloading at all -
> readahead-list was faster [I've stopped before GDM loading for pack file
> generation and used that list with readahead].
>
> Sys 1 (AMD Opteron 144 @ 2.65GHz, 2GB RAM, 7200rpm disk):
> - pack file: 733 files with 73.456.165 bytes
> * no (s)readahead: 18.0s
> * readahead: 17.4s
> * sreadahead: 18.4s
> * sreadahead started with --no-fork: 19.3s
>
> Sys 2 (Intel Core Duo T2400 @ 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM, 5400rpm disk):
> - pack file: 829 files with 57.408.165 bytes
> * no (s)readahead: 23.1s
> * readahead: 21.9s
> * sreadahead: 24.6s
> * sreadahead started with --no-fork: 24.3s
>
> The gap is not big but it's there.
>
> ---
>
> 2.6.31-9-generic (Core Duo system used -7-generic)
>
> readahead:
> Installed: 1:0.20050517.0220-1ubuntu5
>
> sreadahead:
> Installed: 1.0-2
>