| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20120629112240.GC14154@suse.de> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:22:40 +0100 From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> To: linux-mm@...ck.org Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: [MMTests] Network performance Configuration: global-dhp__network-performance Benchmarks: netperf-udp, netperf-tcp, tbench4 Summary ======= Some tests look good but netperf-tcp tests show a number of problems. Benchmark notes =============== netperf used the TCP_STREAM or UDP_STREAM tests. Server and client were bound to CPU 0 and 1 respectively. To improve the chances of getting an accurate reading "-i 50,6 -I 99,1" was specified on the command line. Personally I tend to find netperf figures a bit unreliable and can vary depending on the exact starting conditions. This might be due to the test being run against localhost or because there is no other machine activity to smooth outliers related to cache coloring. Suggestions on how to mitigate this are welcome. tbench was from dbench 4 and ran for 3 minutes. =========================================================== Machine: arnold Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__network-performance/arnold/comparison.html Arch: x86 CPUs: 1 socket, 2 threads Model: Pentium 4 Disk: Single Rotary Disk Status: Ok, but netperf-tcp has problems =========================================================== netperf-udp ----------- For the most part, this looks good. 2.6.34 and 3.2.9 were both bad kernels for some reason but currently it looks fine. I tend to find that netperf figures fluctuate easily and t netperf-tcp ----------- This is less healthy, it looks like there is a fairly consistent regression of 2-5%. tbench4 ------- Some of these tests failed to run and the logs are unclear as to why but only happened on this machine. It's only now that I noticed. While results are looking ok now, there were some regressions for 3.0 until 3.2 kernels that might be of concern to -stable users. ========================================================== Machine: hydra Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-metadata-ext3/hydra/comparison.html Arch: x86-64 CPUs: 1 socket, 4 threads Model: AMD Phenom II X4 940 Disk: Single Rotary Disk Status: Ok, but netperf-tcp has problems ========================================================== netperf-udp ----------- This is looking great. There was a high in 3.1 that has been lost since but it's still better overall in comparison to 2.6.32. netperf-tcp ----------- This is less healthy with a lot of regression. 3.4 has mostly regressed to the tune of 2-13% versus 2.6.32. tbench4 ------- For the most part, this is looking ok. 2 clients seems to be particularly problematic for some reason but otherwise looks good. ========================================================== Machine: sandy Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-metadata-ext3/sandy/comparison.html Arch: x86-64 CPUs: 1 socket, 8 threads Model: Intel Core i7-2600 Disk: Single Rotary Disk Status: Bad, tbench is ok just otherwise poor ========================================================== netperf-udp ----------- This is not a happy story. There was a big drop between 3.2 and 3.3 and the regression is still there in comparison to 2.6.32 netperf-tcp ----------- This has consistently regressed since 2.6.34 with the regression very roughly around the 10% mark. tbench4 ------- Unlike the other tests, this is looking reasonably good with performance gains until the number of clients gets really high. It was interesting to note that 2.6.34 was a particularly good kernel for tbench and while current kernels are better then 2.6.32, they are not as good as 2.6.34. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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