linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.39 with contest 0.41
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:58:30 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1033196310.3d955316425bd@kolivas.net> (raw)



Here follow the latest benchmarks with contest (http://contest.kolivas.net)

noload:
Kernel                  Time            CPU             Ratio
2.4.19                  67.71           98%             1.00*
2.5.38                  72.38           94%             1.07
2.5.38-mm3              73.00           93%             1.08
2.5.39                  73.17           93%             1.08

process_load:
Kernel                  Time            CPU             Ratio
2.4.19                  110.75          57%             1.64*
2.5.38                  85.71           79%             1.27
2.5.38-mm3              96.32           72%             1.42*
2.5.39                  88.18           77%             1.30

io_load:
Kernel                  Time            CPU             Ratio
2.4.19                  216.05          33%             3.19
2.5.38                  887.76          8%              13.11*
2.5.38-mm3              105.17          70%             1.55*
2.5.39                  216.81          37%             3.20

mem_load:
Kernel                  Time            CPU             Ratio
2.4.19                  105.40          70%             1.56
2.5.38                  107.89          73%             1.59
2.5.38-mm3              117.09          63%             1.73*
2.5.39                  103.72          72%             1.53

Things to note:
Despite the new deadline scheduler, performance under IO load is worse than
2.5.38-mm3 (something else?)

Asterisks are placed where the difference was statistically significant from 2.5.39

Hardware: 1133Mhz P3, 224Mb Ram, IDE ATA100 5400rpm drive, IO load on same drive
as compile.

*NOTE* New version of contest means results are not compatible with results of
0.3x. Process Load now more of a process load (and less of a cpu load), and
changed priming (memory flushing) prior to each test results in far greater
resolution of results - hence the notable change in even noload results.

Comments?
Con.

             reply	other threads:[~2002-09-28  6:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-09-28  6:58 Con Kolivas [this message]
2002-09-28  8:23 ` [BENCHMARK] 2.5.39 with contest 0.41 Andrew Morton
2002-09-28  8:31   ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-28  8:45     ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-28  9:08     ` Jens Axboe
2002-09-28  9:17       ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-28 15:17 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-09-28 23:59 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-29  9:00 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-09-29  9:17 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-29 17:14 Paolo Ciarrocchi

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=1033196310.3d955316425bd@kolivas.net \
    --to=conman@kolivas.net \
    --cc=akpm@digeo.com \
    --cc=axboe@suse.de \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).