[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46372C8B.7090901@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 08:03:23 -0400
From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: CFQ IO scheduler patch series - AIM7 DBase results on a 16-way
IA64
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30 2007, Alan D. Brunelle wrote:
>> The results from a single run of an AIM7 DBase load on a 16-way ia64 box
>> (64GB RAM + 144 FC disks) showed a slight regression (~0.5%) by adding
>> in this patch. (Graph can be found at
>> http://free.linux.hp.com/~adb/cfq/cfq_dbase.png ) It is only a single
>> set of runs, on a single platform, but it is something to keep an eye on
>> as the regression showed itself across the complete run.
>
> Do you know if this regression is due to worse IO performance, or
> increased system CPU usage?
We performed two point runs yesterday (20,000 and 50,000 tasks) and here
are the results:
Kernel Tasks Jobs per Minute %sys (avg)
------ ----- --------------- ----------
2.6.21 20000 60,831.1 39.83%
CFQ br 20000 60,237.4 40.80%
-0.98% +2.44%
2.6.21 50000 60,881.6 40.43%
CFQ br 50000 60,400.6 40.80%
-0.79% +0.92%
So we're seeing a slight IO performance regression with a slight
increase in %system with the CFQ branch. (A chart of the complete run
values is up on http://free.linux.hp.com/~adb/cfq/cfq_20k50k.png ).
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists