From: rwhron@earthlink.net
To: akpm@digeo.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.68 and 2.5.68-mm2
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:58:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030426015856.GA2286@rushmore> (raw)
>> The autoconf-2.53 make/make check is a fork test. 2.5.68
>> is about 13% faster here.
> I wonder why. Which fs was it?
That was on ext2. There isn't much i/o on autoconf "make check".
It's a lot of small perl scripts, m4 and gcc on tiny files.
>> On the AIM7 database test, -mm2 was about 18% faster and
> iirc, AIM7 is dominated by lots of O_SYNC writes. I'd have expected the
> anticipatory scheduler to do worse. Odd. Which fs was it?
That was ext2 too.
> tiobench will create a bunch of processes, each growing a large file, all
> in the same directory.
> The benchmark is hitting a pathologoical case. Yeah, it's a problem, but
> it's not as bad as tiobench indicates.
Oracle doing reads/writes to preallocated, contiguous files is more
important than tiobench. Oracle datafiles are typically created
sequentially, which wouldn't exercise the pathology.
I pay more attention the OSDL-DBT-3 and "Winmark I" numbers than
the i/o stuff I run. (I look at my numbers more, but care about
theirs more).
What about the behavior where CPU utilization goes down as thread
count goes up? Is she just i/o bound?
Sequential Reads ext2
Num
Kernel Thr Rate (CPU%)
---------- --- ----- ------
2.5.68 8 36.65 18.04%
2.5.68-mm2 8 23.96 11.15%
2.5.68 256 34.10 16.88%
2.5.68-mm2 256 18.84 8.96%
--
Randy Hron
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html
next reply other threads:[~2003-04-26 1:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-04-26 1:58 rwhron [this message]
2003-04-26 2:20 ` [BENCHMARK] 2.5.68 and 2.5.68-mm2 Nick Piggin
2003-04-26 3:11 ` Nick Piggin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-04-30 0:59 rwhron
2003-05-01 18:10 ` Nick Piggin
2003-04-28 21:58 rwhron
2003-04-25 23:09 rwhron
2003-04-25 23:25 ` Andrew Morton
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=20030426015856.GA2286@rushmore \
--to=rwhron@earthlink.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.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 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).