From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> To: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [MMTests] dbench4 async on ext3 Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:21:46 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20120723212146.GG9222@suse.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20120629111932.GA14154@suse.de> Configuration: global-dhp__io-dbench4-async-ext3 Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-dbench4-async-ext3 Benchmarks: dbench4 Summary ======= In general there was a massive drop in throughput after 3.0. Very broadly speaking it looks like the Read operation got faster but at the cost of a big regression in the Flush operation. Benchmark notes =============== mkfs was run on system startup. No attempt was made to age it. No special mkfs or mount options were used. dbench 4 was used. Tests ran for 180 seconds once warmed up. A varying number of clients were used up to 64*NR_CPU. osync, sync-directory and fsync were all off. =========================================================== Machine: arnold Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-dbench4-async-ext3/arnold/comparison.html Arch: x86 CPUs: 1 socket, 2 threads Model: Pentium 4 Disk: Single Rotary Disk =========================================================== dbench4 ------- Generally worse with a big drop in throughput after 3.0 for small number of clients. In some cases there is an improvement in latency for 3.0 and later kernels but not always. ========================================================== Machine: hydra Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-dbench4-async-ext3/hydra/comparison.html Arch: x86-64 CPUs: 1 socket, 4 threads Model: AMD Phenom II X4 940 Disk: Single Rotary Disk Status: Ok ========================================================== dbench4 ------- Similar to arnold, big drop in throughput after 3.0 for small numbers of clients. Unlike arnold, this is matched by an improvement in latency so it may be the case that IO is more fair even if dbench complains about the latency. Very very broadly speaking, it looks like the read operation got a lot faster but flush got a lot slower. ========================================================== Machine: sandy Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-dbench4-async-ext3/sandy/comparison.html Arch: x86-64 CPUs: 1 socket, 8 threads Model: Intel Core i7-2600 Disk: Single Rotary Disk Status: ========================================================== dbench4 ------- Same story, big drop in throughput after 3.0 with flush again looking very expensive for 3.1 and later kernels. Latency figures are a mixed bag. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> To: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [MMTests] dbench4 async on ext3 Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:21:46 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20120723212146.GG9222@suse.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20120629111932.GA14154@suse.de> Configuration: global-dhp__io-dbench4-async-ext3 Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-dbench4-async-ext3 Benchmarks: dbench4 Summary ======= In general there was a massive drop in throughput after 3.0. Very broadly speaking it looks like the Read operation got faster but at the cost of a big regression in the Flush operation. Benchmark notes =============== mkfs was run on system startup. No attempt was made to age it. No special mkfs or mount options were used. dbench 4 was used. Tests ran for 180 seconds once warmed up. A varying number of clients were used up to 64*NR_CPU. osync, sync-directory and fsync were all off. =========================================================== Machine: arnold Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-dbench4-async-ext3/arnold/comparison.html Arch: x86 CPUs: 1 socket, 2 threads Model: Pentium 4 Disk: Single Rotary Disk =========================================================== dbench4 ------- Generally worse with a big drop in throughput after 3.0 for small number of clients. In some cases there is an improvement in latency for 3.0 and later kernels but not always. ========================================================== Machine: hydra Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-dbench4-async-ext3/hydra/comparison.html Arch: x86-64 CPUs: 1 socket, 4 threads Model: AMD Phenom II X4 940 Disk: Single Rotary Disk Status: Ok ========================================================== dbench4 ------- Similar to arnold, big drop in throughput after 3.0 for small numbers of clients. Unlike arnold, this is matched by an improvement in latency so it may be the case that IO is more fair even if dbench complains about the latency. Very very broadly speaking, it looks like the read operation got a lot faster but flush got a lot slower. ========================================================== Machine: sandy Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-dbench4-async-ext3/sandy/comparison.html Arch: x86-64 CPUs: 1 socket, 8 threads Model: Intel Core i7-2600 Disk: Single Rotary Disk Status: ========================================================== dbench4 ------- Same story, big drop in throughput after 3.0 with flush again looking very expensive for 3.1 and later kernels. Latency figures are a mixed bag. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-23 21:22 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 108+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-06-20 11:32 MMTests 0.04 Mel Gorman 2012-06-20 11:32 ` Mel Gorman 2012-06-29 11:19 ` Mel Gorman 2012-06-29 11:19 ` Mel Gorman 2012-06-29 11:21 ` [MMTests] Page allocator Mel Gorman 2012-06-29 11:21 ` Mel Gorman 2012-06-29 11:22 ` [MMTests] Network performance Mel Gorman 2012-06-29 11:22 ` Mel Gorman 2012-06-29 11:23 ` [MMTests] IO metadata on ext3 Mel Gorman 2012-06-29 11:23 ` Mel Gorman 2012-06-29 11:24 ` [MMTests] IO metadata on ext4 Mel Gorman 2012-06-29 11:24 ` Mel Gorman 2012-06-29 11:25 ` [MMTests] IO metadata on XFS Mel Gorman 2012-06-29 11:25 ` Mel Gorman 2012-06-29 11:25 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-01 23:54 ` Dave Chinner 2012-07-01 23:54 ` Dave Chinner 2012-07-01 23:54 ` Dave Chinner 2012-07-02 6:32 ` Christoph Hellwig 2012-07-02 6:32 ` Christoph Hellwig 2012-07-02 6:32 ` Christoph Hellwig 2012-07-02 14:32 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-02 14:32 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-02 14:32 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-02 19:35 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-02 19:35 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-02 19:35 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-03 0:19 ` Dave Chinner 2012-07-03 0:19 ` Dave Chinner 2012-07-03 0:19 ` Dave Chinner 2012-07-03 10:59 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-03 10:59 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-03 10:59 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-03 11:44 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-03 11:44 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-03 11:44 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-03 12:31 ` Daniel Vetter 2012-07-03 12:31 ` Daniel Vetter 2012-07-03 12:31 ` Daniel Vetter 2012-07-03 13:08 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-03 13:08 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-03 13:08 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-03 13:28 ` Eugeni Dodonov 2012-07-03 13:28 ` Eugeni Dodonov 2012-07-04 0:47 ` Dave Chinner 2012-07-04 0:47 ` Dave Chinner 2012-07-04 0:47 ` Dave Chinner 2012-07-04 9:51 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-04 9:51 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-04 9:51 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-03 13:04 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-03 13:04 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-03 13:04 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-03 14:04 ` Daniel Vetter 2012-07-03 14:04 ` Daniel Vetter 2012-07-03 14:04 ` Daniel Vetter 2012-07-02 13:30 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-02 13:30 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-02 13:30 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-04 15:52 ` [MMTests] Page reclaim performance on ext3 Mel Gorman 2012-07-04 15:52 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-04 15:53 ` [MMTests] Page reclaim performance on ext4 Mel Gorman 2012-07-04 15:53 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-04 15:53 ` [MMTests] Page reclaim performance on xfs Mel Gorman 2012-07-04 15:53 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-05 14:56 ` [MMTests] Interactivity during IO on ext3 Mel Gorman 2012-07-05 14:56 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-10 9:49 ` Jan Kara 2012-07-10 9:49 ` Jan Kara 2012-07-10 11:30 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-10 11:30 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-05 14:57 ` [MMTests] Interactivity during IO on ext4 Mel Gorman 2012-07-05 14:57 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:12 ` [MMTests] Scheduler Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:12 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:13 ` [MMTests] Sysbench read-only on ext3 Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:13 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-24 2:29 ` Mike Galbraith 2012-07-24 2:29 ` Mike Galbraith 2012-07-24 8:19 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-24 8:19 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-24 8:32 ` Mike Galbraith 2012-07-24 8:32 ` Mike Galbraith 2012-07-23 21:14 ` [MMTests] Sysbench read-only on ext4 Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:14 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:15 ` [MMTests] Sysbench read-only on xfs Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:15 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:17 ` [MMTests] memcachetest and parallel IO on ext3 Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:17 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:19 ` [MMTests] memcachetest and parallel IO on xfs Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:19 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:20 ` [MMTests] Stress high-order allocations on ext3 Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:20 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:21 ` Mel Gorman [this message] 2012-07-23 21:21 ` [MMTests] dbench4 async " Mel Gorman 2012-08-16 14:52 ` Jan Kara 2012-08-16 14:52 ` Jan Kara 2012-08-21 22:00 ` Jan Kara 2012-08-21 22:00 ` Jan Kara 2012-08-22 10:48 ` Mel Gorman 2012-08-22 10:48 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:23 ` [MMTests] dbench4 async on ext4 Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:23 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:24 ` [MMTests] Threaded IO Performance on ext3 Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:24 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:25 ` [MMTests] Threaded IO Performance on xfs Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:25 ` Mel Gorman 2012-07-23 21:25 ` Mel Gorman
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20120723212146.GG9222@suse.de \ --to=mgorman@suse.de \ --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.