From: J Sloan <joe@tmsusa.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.5.8 final - another data point
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 01:14:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3CBA8BEC.4090707@tmsusa.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3CB9EF57.6010609@tmsusa.com> <3CBA6943.4000701@tmsusa.com> <3CBA7EC4.BA148E80@zip.com.au>
Andrew Morton wrote:
>It's not related to BIO. dbench is all about higher-level
>memory management, high-level IO scheduling and butterfly
>wings.
>
Yes, no doubt and a lot of other deep magic
which is only dimly perceived by the likes
of yours truly....
>>
>>Throughput 150.159 MB/sec (NB=187.698 MB/sec 1501.59 MBit/sec) 8 procs
>>Throughput 7.25691 MB/sec (NB=9.07113 MB/sec 72.5691 MBit/sec) 16 procs
>>Throughput 6.36332 MB/sec (NB=7.95415 MB/sec 63.6332 MBit/sec) 32 procs
>>
>
>It's obviously fallen over some cliff. Conceivably the larger readahead
>window causes this. How much memory does the machine have?
>
The box has 512 MB RAM -
>`dbench 64'
>on a 512 meg setup certainly causes readahead thrashing. You can
>stick a `printk("ouch");' into handle_ra_thrashing() and watch it...
>
hmm - OK, will try that -
Just for giggles, same machine with 2.4.19-pre4-ac4 -
Throughput 150.979 MB/sec (NB=188.723 MB/sec 1509.79 MBit/sec) 1 procs
Throughput 150.796 MB/sec (NB=188.496 MB/sec 1507.96 MBit/sec) 2 procs
Throughput 151.185 MB/sec (NB=188.982 MB/sec 1511.85 MBit/sec) 4 procs
Throughput 141.255 MB/sec (NB=176.568 MB/sec 1412.55 MBit/sec) 8 procs
Throughput 105.066 MB/sec (NB=131.332 MB/sec 1050.66 MBit/sec) 16 procs
Throughput 69.3542 MB/sec (NB=86.6928 MB/sec 693.542 MBit/sec) 32 procs
Throughput 32.4904 MB/sec (NB=40.613 MB/sec 324.904 MBit/sec) 64 procs
Throughput 30.4824 MB/sec (NB=38.103 MB/sec 304.824 MBit/sec) 80 procs
Throughput 19.0265 MB/sec (NB=23.7832 MB/sec 190.265 MBit/sec) 128 procs
>
>
>Patience. 2.5.later-on will perform well. :)
>
Oh, yes -
It's already quite usable for some workloads, and the
latency for workstation use is quite good - I am looking
forward to the maturation of this diamond in the rough
:-)
Joe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-15 8:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-14 21:06 2.5.8 final - J Sloan
2002-04-15 5:46 ` 2.5.8 final - another data point J Sloan
2002-04-15 6:35 ` J Sloan
2002-04-15 7:27 ` Andrew Morton
2002-04-15 8:02 ` J Sloan
2002-04-15 7:18 ` Andrew Morton
2002-04-15 8:14 ` J Sloan [this message]
2002-04-15 14:15 ` 2.5.8 final - Luigi Genoni
2002-04-15 14:55 ` David S. Miller
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-04-16 12:42 2.5.8 final - another data point rwhron
2002-04-16 18:31 ` J Sloan
2002-04-16 21:48 rwhron
2002-04-16 22:02 ` 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=3CBA8BEC.4090707@tmsusa.com \
--to=joe@tmsusa.com \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--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.