From: rwhron@earthlink.net
To: piggin@cyberone.com.au
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.68 and 2.5.68-mm2
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:59:02 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030430005902.GA32599@rushmore> (raw)
> A run with deadline on mm would be nice to see.
Summary:
Most benchmarks don't show much difference between 2.5.68-mm2 using
anticipatory vs deadline scheduler. AIM7 had almost no difference.
Tiobench has the most difference.
Quad P3 Xeon
RAID 0 LUN
All of these are ext2 filesystem
3.75 GB ram.
tiobench-0.3.3
Unit information
================
File size = 8192 megabytes
Blk Size = bytes
Rate = megabytes per second
CPU% = percentage of CPU used during the test
Latency = milliseconds
Lat% = percent of requests that took longer than X seconds
CPU Eff = Rate divided by CPU% - throughput per cpu load
2.5.68 is here because both i/o schedulers in -mm2 did better at
random writes on ext2.
2.5.68-mm2-dl = deadline elevator.
For tiobench sequential reads on ext2, 2.5.68-mm2 with deadline has higher
throughput and lower latency. Note the kernels that use the most cpu time
have the best performance.
Num Avg Maximum Lat% Lat% CPU
Kernel Thr Rate (CPU%) Latency Latency >2s >10s Eff
--------------- --- ------------------------------------------------------------
2.5.68-mm2-dl 1 28.85 13.76% 0.403 635.44 0.00000 0.00000 210
2.5.68 1 28.77 13.23% 0.405 592.14 0.00000 0.00000 217
2.5.68-mm2 1 28.77 13.80% 0.404 659.18 0.00000 0.00000 208
2.5.68-mm2-dl 8 42.36 22.27% 2.147 1249.47 0.00000 0.00000 190
2.5.68 8 36.65 18.04% 2.542 945.37 0.00000 0.00000 203
2.5.68-mm2 8 23.96 11.15% 3.810 1219.85 0.00000 0.00000 215
2.5.68-mm2-dl 16 39.36 20.66% 4.534 1105.91 0.00000 0.00000 190
2.5.68 16 30.56 14.94% 6.080 1224.19 0.00000 0.00000 204
2.5.68-mm2 16 20.19 9.39% 8.953 2456.76 0.00000 0.00000 215
2.5.68-mm2-dl 32 36.47 18.93% 9.741 1412.80 0.00000 0.00000 193
2.5.68 32 27.74 13.84% 13.376 1498.48 0.00000 0.00000 200
2.5.68-mm2 32 20.15 9.50% 16.728 4424.53 0.00000 0.00000 212
2.5.68-mm2-dl 64 38.40 20.35% 17.873 4122.37 0.00000 0.00000 189
2.5.68 64 28.47 14.54% 25.294 6204.46 0.00005 0.00000 196
2.5.68-mm2 64 19.54 9.40% 32.600 12986.20 0.04410 0.00000 208
2.5.68-mm2-dl 128 39.11 20.61% 32.887 11232.22 0.02675 0.00000 190
2.5.68 128 29.87 14.99% 41.715 17752.22 0.10242 0.00000 199
2.5.68-mm2 128 19.28 9.21% 63.638 57459.95 1.27239 0.01006 209
2.5.68-mm2-dl 256 40.42 21.18% 58.473 36299.72 1.36814 0.00029 191
2.5.68 256 34.10 16.88% 64.697 51122.80 1.16358 0.01163 202
2.5.68-mm2 256 18.84 8.96% 125.350 164470.88 1.43795 0.14148 210
tiobench random reads on ext2 also has higher throughput and lower latency with
deadline. Higher cpu utilization appears in the better performing kernels.
Num Avg Maximum Lat% Lat% CPU
Kernel Thr Rate (CPU%) Latency Latency >2s >10s Eff
--------------- --- ------------------------------------------------------------
2.5.68-mm2-dl 1 1.00 0.94% 11.687 108.48 0.00000 0.00000 107
2.5.68-mm2 1 0.95 0.88% 12.383 121.84 0.00000 0.00000 108
2.5.68 1 0.84 0.75% 14.003 120.98 0.00000 0.00000 111
2.5.68-mm2-dl 8 5.55 4.97% 16.053 122.95 0.00000 0.00000 112
2.5.68 8 4.56 4.29% 19.193 122.64 0.00000 0.00000 106
2.5.68-mm2 8 0.96 0.85% 95.108 715.00 0.00000 0.00000 113
2.5.68-mm2-dl 16 6.56 6.94% 25.925 228.94 0.00000 0.00000 95
2.5.68 16 4.34 3.95% 40.724 212.21 0.00000 0.00000 110
2.5.68-mm2 16 0.99 0.80% 178.652 1203.69 0.00000 0.00000 123
2.5.68-mm2-dl 32 5.65 5.78% 60.735 355.96 0.00000 0.00000 98
2.5.68 32 3.28 3.40% 98.453 335.85 0.00000 0.00000 96
2.5.68-mm2 32 0.94 0.76% 357.853 2151.68 0.00000 0.00000 124
2.5.68-mm2-dl 64 5.94 5.69% 108.393 553.00 0.00000 0.00000 104
2.5.68 64 4.20 3.87% 137.963 647.04 0.00000 0.00000 108
2.5.68-mm2 64 0.91 0.79% 677.313 3973.72 0.00000 0.00000 115
2.5.68-mm2-dl 128 7.13 7.08% 163.155 1793.65 0.00000 0.00000 101
2.5.68 128 4.18 4.03% 245.390 1693.66 0.00000 0.00000 104
2.5.68-mm2 128 0.90 0.76% 1275.112 7329.02 11.84476 0.00000 119
2.5.68-mm2-dl 256 7.33 7.18% 249.025 4519.38 0.00000 0.00000 102
2.5.68 256 4.96 4.47% 285.231 6121.11 0.78125 0.00000 111
2.5.68-mm2 256 0.86 0.86% 2160.203 40955.72 32.13542 3.67187 99
For tiobench random writes on ext2, something in -mm2 gives both elevators an edge
over 2.5.68. Possibly from CONFIG_SCSI_QLOGIC_ISP_NEW=y.
Num Avg Maximum Lat% Lat% CPU
Kernel Thr Rate (CPU%) Latency Latency >2s >10s Eff
--------------- --- ------------------------------------------------------------
2.5.68-mm2-dl 1 4.54 3.73% 0.076 20.17 0.00000 0.00000 122
2.5.68-mm2 1 4.48 3.94% 0.077 22.02 0.00000 0.00000 114
2.5.68 1 2.86 2.73% 1.059 60.94 0.00000 0.00000 105
2.5.68-mm2-dl 8 4.55 6.24% 0.800 186.48 0.00000 0.00000 73
2.5.68-mm2 8 4.09 3.91% 1.984 488.24 0.00000 0.00000 104
2.5.68 8 3.73 4.39% 1.176 81.25 0.00000 0.00000 85
2.5.68-mm2-dl 16 4.49 6.12% 2.378 241.77 0.00000 0.00000 73
2.5.68-mm2 16 4.00 4.45% 3.510 969.07 0.00000 0.00000 90
2.5.68 16 3.69 4.21% 1.872 189.26 0.00000 0.00000 88
2.5.68-mm2-dl 32 4.41 6.50% 1.871 324.33 0.00000 0.00000 68
2.5.68-mm2 32 4.03 5.62% 4.660 1455.09 0.00000 0.00000 72
2.5.68 32 3.71 4.89% 2.102 352.52 0.00000 0.00000 76
2.5.68-mm2-dl 64 4.44 7.49% 1.768 235.32 0.00000 0.00000 59
2.5.68-mm2 64 4.26 7.39% 2.334 1483.77 0.00000 0.00000 58
2.5.68 64 3.71 5.68% 2.266 701.86 0.00000 0.00000 65
2.5.68-mm2-dl 128 4.42 8.27% 1.640 1477.07 0.00000 0.00000 53
2.5.68-mm2 128 4.35 8.14% 0.853 275.49 0.00000 0.00000 53
2.5.68 128 3.79 6.87% 1.343 1042.66 0.00000 0.00000 55
2.5.68-mm2-dl 256 4.37 8.75% 0.689 1039.17 0.00000 0.00000 50
2.5.68-mm2 256 4.36 8.87% 2.487 3519.76 0.00000 0.00000 49
2.5.68 256 3.79 6.70% 0.304 79.07 0.00000 0.00000 57
Anticipatory scheduler had more throughtput on dbench 192 on ext2.
dbench 192 processes Average High Low
2.5.68-mm2 203.79 215.85 192.65 MB/sec
2.5.68-mm2-dl 198.72 212.53 182.85 MB/sec
bonnie++-1.02a on ext2, 8 1024 MB files. The new qlogic driver may be the
difference between -mm and 2.5.68.
--------------------- Sequential Output ------------------
---- Per Char ----- ------ Block ----- ---- Rewrite ----
Kernel MB/sec %CPU Eff MB/sec %CPU Eff MB/sec %CPU Eff
2.5.68-mm2 9.42 99.0 9.51 71.61 57.0 126 17.52 19.0 92
2.5.68-mm2-dl 9.37 99.0 9.47 71.79 57.0 126 17.00 18.0 94
2.5.68 9.50 99.0 9.60 68.62 53.3 129 15.92 17.0 94
deadline elevator does much better on bonnie++ random seek test.
-------- Sequential Input ---------- ----- Random -----
---- Per Char --- ----- Block ----- ----- Seeks -----
Kernel MB/sec %CPU Eff MB/sec %CPU Eff /sec %CPU Eff
2.5.68 9.38 99.0 9.5 26.98 19.3 140 502.5 3.00 16750
2.5.68-mm2 9.28 98.0 9.5 27.29 20.0 136 203.9 1.00 20393
2.5.68-mm2-dl 9.34 98.0 9.5 27.62 20.0 138 553.1 3.67 15084
Not much difference on the bonnie++ small files tests.
---------Sequential ------------------
----- Create ----- ---- Delete ----
files /sec %CPU Eff /sec %CPU Eff
2.5.68 65536 151 99.0 153 61933 99.3 6234
2.5.68-mm2 65536 155 99.0 156 60020 99.0 6062
2.5.68-mm2-dl 65536 147 99.0 148 61431 99.7 6163
-------------------Random -----------
----- Create ---- ---- Delete ----
/sec %CPU Eff /sec %CPU Eff
2.5.68 155 100.0 155 536 100.0 536
2.5.68-mm2 152 99.0 153 525 99.0 530
2.5.68-mm2-dl 151 99.0 153 518 99.0 523
--
Randy Hron
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html
next reply other threads:[~2003-04-30 0:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-04-30 0:59 rwhron [this message]
2003-05-01 18:10 ` [BENCHMARK] 2.5.68 and 2.5.68-mm2 Nick Piggin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-04-28 21:58 rwhron
2003-04-26 1:58 rwhron
2003-04-26 2:20 ` Nick Piggin
2003-04-26 3:11 ` Nick Piggin
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=20030430005902.GA32599@rushmore \
--to=rwhron@earthlink.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
/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).