[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <213736.67377.qm@web32614.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Martin Knoblauch <knobi@...bisoft.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc1: First impressions
----- Original Message ----
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: spamtrap@...bisoft.de; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl; wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn; torvalds@...ux-foundation.org; riel@...hat.com
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:33:40 PM
> Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc1: First impressions
>
>
> * Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > > dd1 - copy 16 GB from /dev/zero to local FS
> > > > dd1-dir - same, but using O_DIRECT for output
> > > > dd2/dd2-dir - copy 2x7.6 GB in parallel from /dev/zero to
> local
>
FS
> > > > dd3/dd3-dir - copy 3x5.2 GB in parallel from /dev/zero lo
> local
>
FS
> > > > net1 - copy 5.2 GB from NFS3 share to local FS
> > > > mix3 - copy 3x5.2 GB from /dev/zero to local disk and two
> NFS3
>
shares
> > > >
> > > > I did the numbers for 2.6.19.2, 2.6.22.6 and 2.6.24-rc1.
> All
>
units
> > > > are MB/sec.
> > > >
> > > > test 2.6.19.2 2.6.22.6 2.6.24.-rc1
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > dd1 28 50 96
> > > > dd1-dir 88 88 86
> > > > dd2 2x16.5 2x11 2x44.5
> > > > dd2-dir 2x44 2x44 2x43
> > > > dd3 3x9.8 3x8.7 3x30
> > > > dd3-dir 3x29.5 3x29.5 3x28.5
> > > > net1 30-33 50-55 37-52
> > > > mix3 17/32 25/50
> 96/35
>
(disk/combined-network)
> > >
> > > wow, really nice results!
> >
> > Those changes seem suspiciously large to me. I wonder if
> there's
>
less
> > physical IO happening during the timed run, and correspondingly more
> > afterwards.
>
> so a final 'sync' should be added to the test too, and the time
> it
>
takes
> factored into the bandwidth numbers?
>
One of the reasons I do 15 GB transfers is to make sure that I am well above the possible page cache size. And of course I am doing a final sync to finish the runs :-) The sync is also running faster in 2.6.24-rc1.
If I factor it in the results for dd1/dd3 are:
test 2.6.19.2 2.6.22.6 2.6.24-rc1
sync time 18sec 19sec 6sec
dd1 27.5 47.5 92
dd3 3x9.1 3x8.5 3x29
So basically including the sync time make 2.6.24-rc1 even more promosing. Now, I know that my benchmarks numbers are crude and show only a very small aspect of system performance. But - it is an aspect I care about a lot. And those benchmarks match my use-case pretty good.
Cheers
Martin
-
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