From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262679AbTJaBCk (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:02:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262739AbTJaBCk (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:02:40 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:19128 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262679AbTJaBCi (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:02:38 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:02:37 -0800 (PST) From: Judith Lebzelter To: Subject: OSDL Tiobench scheduler comparison - Random Reads Bad Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello; We have run tiobench-0.3.3 in Scalable Test Platform at OSDL against the latest 2.6.0-test kernels and against the base versions of the 2.4 kernel. Random reads performance at the 128k block size stood out because the 2.4 kernels performed much better than the 2.6 kernels. The test measures throughput in Mbytes/sec. I have summarized it here to show the percent difference from the baseline, which is linux-2.6.0-test7 with the deadline scheduler. The other kernels use their default schedulers. The numbers in parentheses are the number of threads. Bigger numbers are better. Negative is bad. Random Reads/128k Block Size Kernel Lowest % Highest % Ave % Options ------------------------------------------------------------------------- linux-2.6.0-test7 (baseline) 0.00(1) 0.00(1) 0.00 elevator=deadline linux-2.6.0-test7 -67.07(8) 24.42(1) -33.23 linux-2.6.0-test8 -66.28(8) 30.62(1) -31.13 profile=2 2.6.0-test8-mm1 3.23(8) 170.62(1) 64.77 profile=2 linux-2.6.0-test9 -66.34(8) 48.14(1) -27.66 profile=2 linux-2.6.0-test9 -66.46(8) 22.12(1) -33.65 profile=2 linux-2.4.18 93.48(8) 211.68(1) 156.81 profile=2 linux-2.4.19 109.39(8) 216.11(1) 162.67 profile=2 linux-2.4.20 111.40(8) 215.40(1) 163.98 For random reads the Deadline scheduler is better for multiple threads. The mm1 is better in general. The 2.4 kernels are a lot better. (The test9-mm1 is currently queued) The results with links to the data are posted at: http://www.osdl.org/archive/judith/tests/tiobench/new/2.4_2.6/tiobench.2-CPU.ext2.128.html http://www.osdl.org/archive/judith/tests/tiobench/new/2.4_2.6/tiobench.2-CPU.ext2.4.html An explanation of the report is at: http://developer.osdl.org/judith/tiobench_index.html We used tiobench-0.3.3 on 2-CPU hosts with 1G of RAM; here are the options: /usr/bin/time -o /root/tiobench/results/tiobench.jfs.times ../tiobenchx.pl --size 2643 --block 4096 --block 131072 --numruns 5 --dir /mnt/sdc Thanks; Judith Lebzelter OSDL