All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Ubuntu 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, 64-bit Kernel Benchmarks
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:21:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B3C5F22.1080108@panasas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B3C1137.8060308@tmr.com>

On 12/31/2009 04:49 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Yuhong Bao wrote:
>> Given that Linus was once talking about the performance penalties of PAE and HIGHMEM64G, perhaps you'd find these benchmarks done by Phoronix of interest:
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae
>>
> I find these tests mirror my own experience with PAE, the benefit of having the 
> nx hardware enabled justifies the few percent drop in performance I was able to 
> find.
> 
> I find the huge gain in web service hard to believe without a hint why a 64 bit 
> CPU would be 15x faster. The disk, memory, and network wouldn't be faster, and 
> the CPU intensive tests weren't significantly faster, so unless the systems were 
> tuned differently where's the gain? Same feeling about the TP test, an order of 
> magnitude faster on a test running the same application on the same hardware is 
> hard to buy without an explanation.
> 

Why? simple, Memory. This system must have lots of memory (see the HIGHMEM64G) so
lots of IO must be bouncing on a 32bit system, where in 64bit it is copy-less.

Just my guess, but I'm not surprised.

> The only obvious source I can think of is running the test load at 100Mbit on
> one test and Gbit on another, because I saw an early network driver do just that
> in negotiations with a switch.
> 

Boaz

  reply	other threads:[~2009-12-31  8:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-12-31  1:29 Ubuntu 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, 64-bit Kernel Benchmarks Yuhong Bao
2009-12-31  2:49 ` Bill Davidsen
2009-12-31  8:21   ` Boaz Harrosh [this message]
2009-12-31 16:32     ` Bill Davidsen
2009-12-31 17:49       ` Pedro Ribeiro
2009-12-31 18:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-03  3:39   ` Yuhong Bao
2010-01-16  0:48   ` Yuhong Bao
2010-01-16  1:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-16  2:06   ` Yuhong Bao
2010-01-16  3:47     ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-16  4:32       ` yuhongbao_386
2010-01-16  4:53     ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-16  6:17       ` yuhongbao_386
2010-01-16 17:59       ` Bill Davidsen
2010-01-17  9:26         ` matthieu castet
2010-01-31 17:03       ` Robert Hancock
2010-01-16 12:33   ` Sitsofe Wheeler
2010-01-16 12:57     ` Robert P. J. Day
2010-01-16 17:11       ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-03-01  1:31   ` Yuhong Bao
2010-03-01  1:38   ` Yuhong Bao
2010-01-16  8:46 ` Geert Uytterhoeven

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=4B3C5F22.1080108@panasas.com \
    --to=bharrosh@panasas.com \
    --cc=davidsen@tmr.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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: link
Be 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.