All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@hp.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: btrace <linux-btrace@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:58:33 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <46F92219.9020406@hp.com> (raw)

Taking Linux 2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 as a basis, I took some sample 
runs of the following on both it and after applying Mathieu Desnoyers 
11-patch sequence (19 September 2007).

    * 32-way IA64 + 132GiB + 10 FC adapters + 10 HP MSA 1000s (one 72GiB
      volume per MSA used)

    * 10 runs with each configuration, averages shown below
          o 2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 without blktrace running
          o 2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 with blktrace running
          o 2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 + markers without blktrace running
          o 2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 + markers with blktrace running

    * A run consists of doing the following in parallel:
          o Make an ext3 FS on each of the 10 volumes
          o Mount & unmount each volume
                + The unmounting generates a tremendous amount of writes
                  to the disks - thus stressing the intended storage
                  devices (10 volumes) plus the separate volume for all
                  the blktrace data (when blk tracing is enabled).
                + Note the times reported below only cover the
                  make/mount/unmount time - the actual blktrace runs
                  extended beyond the times measured (took quite a while
                  for the blk trace data to be output). We're only
                  concerned with the impact on the "application"
                  performance in this instance.

Results are:

Kernel                                 w/out BT   STDDEV     w/ BT    STDDEV
-------------------------------------  ---------  ------   ---------  ------
2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1            14.679982    0.34   27.754796    2.09
2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 + markers  14.993041    0.59   26.694993    3.23

It looks to be about 2.1% increase in time to do the make/mount/unmount 
operations with the marker patches in place and no blktrace operations. 
With the blktrace operations in place we see about a 3.8% decrease in 
time to do the same ops.

When our Oracle benchmarking machine frees up, and when the 
marker/blktrace patches are more stable, we'll try to get some "real" 
Oracle benchmark runs done to gage the impact of the markers changes to 
performance...

Alan D. Brunelle
Hewlett-Packard / Open Source and Linux Organization / Scalability and 
Performance Group


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@hp.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: btrace <linux-btrace@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large IO load on large-ish system
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:58:33 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <46F92219.9020406@hp.com> (raw)

Taking Linux 2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 as a basis, I took some sample 
runs of the following on both it and after applying Mathieu Desnoyers 
11-patch sequence (19 September 2007).

    * 32-way IA64 + 132GiB + 10 FC adapters + 10 HP MSA 1000s (one 72GiB
      volume per MSA used)

    * 10 runs with each configuration, averages shown below
          o 2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 without blktrace running
          o 2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 with blktrace running
          o 2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 + markers without blktrace running
          o 2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 + markers with blktrace running

    * A run consists of doing the following in parallel:
          o Make an ext3 FS on each of the 10 volumes
          o Mount & unmount each volume
                + The unmounting generates a tremendous amount of writes
                  to the disks - thus stressing the intended storage
                  devices (10 volumes) plus the separate volume for all
                  the blktrace data (when blk tracing is enabled).
                + Note the times reported below only cover the
                  make/mount/unmount time - the actual blktrace runs
                  extended beyond the times measured (took quite a while
                  for the blk trace data to be output). We're only
                  concerned with the impact on the "application"
                  performance in this instance.

Results are:

Kernel                                 w/out BT   STDDEV     w/ BT    STDDEV
-------------------------------------  ---------  ------   ---------  ------
2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1            14.679982    0.34   27.754796    2.09
2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 + markers  14.993041    0.59   26.694993    3.23

It looks to be about 2.1% increase in time to do the make/mount/unmount 
operations with the marker patches in place and no blktrace operations. 
With the blktrace operations in place we see about a 3.8% decrease in 
time to do the same ops.

When our Oracle benchmarking machine frees up, and when the 
marker/blktrace patches are more stable, we'll try to get some "real" 
Oracle benchmark runs done to gage the impact of the markers changes to 
performance...

Alan D. Brunelle
Hewlett-Packard / Open Source and Linux Organization / Scalability and 
Performance Group


             reply	other threads:[~2007-09-25 14:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-09-25 14:58 Alan D. Brunelle [this message]
2007-09-25 14:58 ` Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large IO load on large-ish system Alan D. Brunelle
2007-09-25 17:13 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-25 17:13   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-09-26 15:28   ` Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large Alan D. Brunelle
2007-09-26 15:28     ` Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large IO load on large-ish system Alan D. Brunelle
2007-10-02 12:21     ` Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large Jens Axboe
2007-10-02 12:21       ` Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large IO load on large-ish system Jens Axboe
2007-10-02 12:48       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-10-02 12:48         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-10-02 17:51         ` Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large Alan D. Brunelle
2007-10-02 17:51           ` Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large IO load on large-ish system Alan D. Brunelle
2007-10-07 19:32     ` Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large Ingo Molnar
2007-10-07 19:32       ` Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large IO load on large-ish system Ingo Molnar
2007-10-07 22:10       ` Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large Joshua Root
2007-10-07 22:10         ` Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large IO load on large-ish system Joshua Root
2007-10-09 17:31       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-10-09 17:31         ` Mathieu Desnoyers

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=46F92219.9020406@hp.com \
    --to=alan.brunelle@hp.com \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-btrace@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
    /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.