From: rwhron@earthlink.net
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: akpm@digeo.com
Subject: Re: IO scheduler benchmarking
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:35:47 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030225053547.GA1571@rushmore> (raw)
Executive question: Why does 2.5.62-mm2 have higher sequential
write latency than 2.5.61-mm1?
tiobench numbers on uniprocessor single disk IDE:
The cfq scheduler (2.5.62-mm2 and 2.5.61-cfq) has a big latency
regression.
2.5.61-mm1 (default scheduler (anticipatory?))
2.5.61-mm1-cfq elevator=cfq
2.5.62-mm2-as anticipatory scheduler
2.5.62-mm2-dline elevator=deadline
2.5.62-mm2 elevator=cfq
Thr MB/sec CPU% avg lat max latency
2.5.61-mm1 8 15.68 54.42% 5.87 ms 2.7 seconds
2.5.61-mm1-cfq 8 9.60 15.07% 7.54 393.0
2.5.62-mm2-as 8 14.76 52.04% 6.14 4.5
2.5.62-mm2-dline 8 9.91 13.90% 9.41 .8
2.5.62-mm2 8 9.83 15.62% 7.38 408.9
2.4.21-pre3 8 10.34 27.66% 8.80 1.0
2.4.21-pre3-ac4 8 10.53 28.41% 8.83 .6
2.4.21-pre3aa1 8 18.55 71.95% 3.25 87.6
For most thread counts (8 - 128), the anticipatory scheduler has roughly
45% higher ext2 sequential read throughput. Latency was higher than
deadline, but a lot lower than cfq.
For tiobench sequential writes, the max latency numbers for 2.4.21-pre3
are notably lower than 2.5.62-mm2 (but not as good as 2.5.61-mm1).
This is with 16 threads.
Thr MB/sec CPU% avg lat max latency
2.5.61-mm1 16 18.30 81.12% 9.159 ms 6.1 seconds
2.5.61-mm1-cfq 16 18.03 80.71% 9.086 6.1
2.5.62-mm2-as 16 18.84 84.25% 8.620 47.7
2.5.62-mm2-dline 16 18.53 84.10% 8.967 53.4
2.5.62-mm2 16 18.46 83.28% 8.521 40.8
2.4.21-pre3 16 16.20 65.13% 9.566 8.7
2.4.21-pre3-ac4 16 18.50 83.68% 8.774 11.6
2.4.21-pre3aa1 16 18.49 88.10% 8.455 7.5
Recent uniprocessor benchmarks:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/latest.html
More uniprocessor benchmarks:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/k6-2-475.html
--
Randy Hron
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html
latest quad xeon benchmarks:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/blatest.html
next reply other threads:[~2003-02-25 5:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-25 5:35 rwhron [this message]
2003-02-25 6:38 ` IO scheduler benchmarking Andrew Morton
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-25 21:57 rwhron
2003-02-25 12:59 rwhron
2003-02-25 22:09 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 5:23 Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 6:51 ` David Lang
2003-02-21 8:16 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 10:31 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-21 10:51 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-02-21 11:08 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-21 11:17 ` Nick Piggin
2003-02-21 11:41 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-21 21:25 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-23 15:09 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-21 11:34 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-02-21 12:38 ` Andrea Arcangeli
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=20030225053547.GA1571@rushmore \
--to=rwhron@earthlink.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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.