linux-kernel - [MMTests] Sysbench read-only on ext3

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120723211334.GA9222@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:13:34 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [MMTests] Sysbench read-only on ext3

Configuration:	global-dhp__io-sysbench-large-ro-ext3
Result: 	http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-sysbench-large-ro-ext3
Benchmarks:	sysbench

Summary
=======

Very large number of regressions.

Benchmark notes
===============

mkfs was run on system startup. No attempt was made to age it. No
special mkfs or mount options were used.

sysbench is an OLTP-like benchmark. The test type was "complex" and
read-only. The table size was 50,000,000 rows regardless of memory size
but far exceeds the memory size of any of the test machines. sysbench
was chosen because it's a reasonably complex OLTP-like benchmark with
straight-forward prerequisites.

The backing database was postgres.

===========================================================
Machine:	arnold
Result:		http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-sysbench-large-ro-ext3/arnold/comparison.html
Arch:		x86
CPUs:		1 socket, 2 threads
Model:		Pentium 4
Disk:		Single Rotary Disk
===========================================================

sysbench
--------
  Oddly two clients is better but 1 or 4 is worse. 

  Swapping for kernels 3.1 and 3.2 is crazy. Direct reclaim started since
  2.6.39 and has not eased off but in the context of the overall test is
  very low.

==========================================================
Machine:	hydra
Result:		http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-sysbench-large-ro-ext3/hydra/comparison.html
Arch:		x86-64
CPUs:		1 socket, 4 threads
Model:		AMD Phenom II X4 940
Disk:		Single Rotary Disk
Status:		Ok
==========================================================

sysbench
--------
  There are a lot of regressions here that were mostly introduced between
  2.6.39 and 3.0. In general, this is looking bad.

  Swapping in kernel 3.1 was higher.

==========================================================
Machine:	sandy
Result:		http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-sysbench-large-ro-ext3/sandy/comparison.html
Arch:		x86-64
CPUs:		1 socket, 8 threads
Model:		Intel Core i7-2600
Disk:		Single Rotary Disk
Status:		
==========================================================

  Generally this is telling a much better story but this could be because
  of the much larger memory size of this machine offsetting some other
  regression.

  Swapping in 3.1 and 3.2.

-- 
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/