linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Hawkes <hawkes@babylon.engr.sgi.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] I/O regression after 2.6.0-test5
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:33:52 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200310272333.h9RNXqaP2542634@babylon.engr.sgi.com> (raw)

I ran AIM7 on a 64p Altix NUMA (Itanium 2 Madison CPUs, 1.5 GHz), with an
XFS filesystem on each of 99 fiberchannel disks, with two different flavors
of AIM7 workloads, on both 2.6.0-test5 and 2.6.0-test8.  One workload shows
that -test8 is half the throughput of -test5.  The other workload shows
that -test8 is 22% faster.

The first workload is the default AIM7 "multiuser/shared system" workload.
2.6.0-test8 shows a peak throughput of 52% of -test5 -- it drops in half.
The -test8 peak at 64p is roughly the same as at 8p and 4p.  This
bottleneck cannot be attributed solely to I/O hardware, since our SGI
ProPack kernel (based upon 2.4.21) achieves a peak throughput at 64p that
is 30% higher than 2.6.0-test5's peak at 64p.

The second workload takes the same "multiuser/shared system" workload,
but turns off the O_SYNC flag for the three sync_* subtests.  This
generally produces higher peak throughput values than when using the
default O_SYNC, and the peak throughput values scale significantly better
as CPU counts increase.  Here the -test8 kernel is 22% *faster* than
-test5 at 64p (and 8x faster for no-O_SYNC than with-O_SYNC).

John Hawkes

             reply	other threads:[~2003-10-27 23:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-10-27 23:33 John Hawkes [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-10-29  0:38 [BENCHMARK] I/O regression after 2.6.0-test5 rwhron
2003-10-26 10:38 rwhron
2003-10-27 23:49 ` Dave Olien
2003-10-24 23:43 rwhron
2003-10-24 12:46 rwhron
2003-10-24  0:10 rwhron
2003-10-21 13:05 rwhron
2003-10-21 15:57 ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-21 21:07 ` venom
2003-10-22  9:54 ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-22 18:30   ` Dave Olien
2003-10-22 19:08     ` Dave Olien
2003-10-23  2:24     ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-23  3:48       ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-23 20:35       ` Dave Olien
2003-10-23 23:07         ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-20  0:37 rwhron
2003-10-20  1:35 ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-20  4:52   ` Andrew Morton
2003-10-20  8:12     ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-20  4:51 ` Dave Olien
2003-10-20  7:55   ` venom
2003-10-21  4:49     ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-24 13:52 ` Magnus Andersson

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=200310272333.h9RNXqaP2542634@babylon.engr.sgi.com \
    --to=hawkes@babylon.engr.sgi.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).