From: "Paolo Ciarrocchi" <ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org>
To: akpm@digeo.com, vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua,
conma@kolivas.net, riel@conectiva.com.br
Cc: ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Poor performance with 2.5.52, load and process in D state
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 08:03:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021226000308.31344.qmail@linuxmail.org> (raw)
Hi Andrew/Rik/Con/all
Andrew, I promised you to run a few tests
using osdb (www.osdb.org with 40M of data)against both
2.4.19 and 2.5.52 booting the kernel with the
mem=XXM paramter.
I also played with the /proc/sys/vm/swappiness
parameter, I've ran all the tests with the standard
swappiness value (60), with 80 and 100.
100 means the 2.4 behaviour, isn't it ?
Looking at the results it seems that the "standard"
value is too low, probably 80 is the best one.
What do you think ?
There is no a big difference in the Time results
between 80 and 100 but looking at the top output
while I was running the tests I saw a big difference
in the swap usage.
Con, could you please run the contest test against
2.5.52 or .53 platying with the swappines parameter ?
Below the results of my test, please let me know if
you want I run more tests or if you need more information.
Ciao,
Paolo
-- By Memory Size --
Kernel Memory Swappiness Time
2.4.19 24 x 3371.98 seconds (0:56:11.98)
2.5.52 24 60 4585.03 seconds (1:16:25.03)
2.5.52 24 80 4285.98 seconds (1:11:25.98)
2.5.52 24 100 3633.64 seconds (1:00:33.64)
2.4.19 40 x 809.39 seconds (0:13:29.39)
2.5.52 40 60 3771.85 seconds (1:02:51.85)
2.5.52 40 80 3342.82 seconds (0:55:42.82)
2.5.52 40 100 855.22 seconds (0:14:15.22)
2.4.19 64 x 796.03 seconds (0:13:16.03)
2.5.52 64 60 840.41 seconds (0:14:00.41)
2.5.52 64 80 828.59 seconds (0:13:48.59)
2.5.52 64 100 833.92 seconds (0:13:53.92)
2.4.19 80 x 790.80 seconds (0:13:10.80)
2.5.52 80 60 788.65 seconds (0:13:08.65)
2.5.52 80 80 790.54 seconds (0:13:10.54)
2.5.52 80 100 793.79 seconds (0:13:13.79)
2.5.52 96 60 779.54 seconds (0:12:59.54)
2.5.52 96 80 782.86 seconds (0:13:02.86)
2.5.52 96 100 778.81 seconds (0:12:58.81)
2.4.19 all x 778.65 seconds (0:12:58.65)
2.5.52 all 60 768.98 seconds (0:12:48.98)
2.5.52 all 80 770.43 seconds (0:12:50.43)
2.5.52 all 100 771.76 seconds (0:12:51.76)
-- By kernel version --
2.4.19 24 x 3371.98 seconds (0:56:11.98)
2.4.19 40 x 809.39 seconds (0:13:29.39)
2.4.19 64 x 796.03 seconds (0:13:16.03)
2.4.19 80 x 790.80 seconds (0:13:10.80)
2.4.19 all x 778.65 seconds (0:12:58.65)
2.5.52 24 60 4585.03 seconds (1:16:25.03)
2.5.52 40 60 3771.85 seconds (1:02:51.85)
2.5.52 64 60 840.41 seconds (0:14:00.41)
2.5.52 80 60 788.65 seconds (0:13:08.65)
2.5.52 96 60 779.54 seconds (0:12:59.54)
2.5.52 all 60 768.98 seconds (0:12:48.98)
2.5.52 24 80 4285.98 seconds (1:11:25.98)
2.5.52 40 80 3342.82 seconds (0:55:42.82)
2.5.52 64 80 828.59 seconds (0:13:48.59)
2.5.52 80 80 790.54 seconds (0:13:10.54)
2.5.52 96 80 782.86 seconds (0:13:02.86)
2.5.52 all 80 770.43 seconds (0:12:50.43)
2.5.52 24 100 3633.64 seconds (1:00:33.64)
2.5.52 40 100 855.22 seconds (0:14:15.22)
2.5.52 64 100 833.92 seconds (0:13:53.92)
2.5.52 80 100 793.79 seconds (0:13:13.79)
2.5.52 96 100 778.81 seconds (0:12:58.81)
2.5.52 all 100 771.76 seconds (0:12:51.76)
--
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze
next reply other threads:[~2002-12-26 1:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-12-26 0:03 Paolo Ciarrocchi [this message]
2002-12-26 7:44 ` Poor performance with 2.5.52, load and process in D state Andrew Morton
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-12-26 9:45 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-12-26 9:26 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-12-26 9:34 ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-23 12:44 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-12-22 17:09 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-12-22 11:37 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-12-23 11:29 ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-25 13:12 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-12-25 8:41 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20021226000308.31344.qmail@linuxmail.org \
--to=ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=conma@kolivas.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
--cc=vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.