From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: akpm@digeo.com, riel@conectiva.com.br
Subject: [BENCHMARK] contest results for 2.5.36
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:46:26 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1032360386.3d8891c2bc3d3@kolivas.net> (raw)
Here are the latest results with 2.5.36 compared with 2.5.34
No Load:
Kernel Time CPU
2.4.19 68.14 99%
2.4.20-pre7 68.11 99%
2.5.34 69.88 99%
2.4.19-ck7 68.40 98%
2.4.19-ck7-rmap 68.73 99%
2.4.19-cc 68.37 99%
2.5.36 69.58 99%
Process Load:
Kernel Time CPU
2.4.19 81.10 80%
2.4.20-pre7 81.92 80%
2.5.34 71.39 94%
2.5.36 71.80 94%
Mem Load:
Kernel Time CPU
2.4.19 92.49 77%
2.4.20-pre7 92.25 77%
2.5.34 138.05 54%
2.5.36 132.45 56%
IO Halfmem Load:
Kernel Time CPU
2.4.19 99.41 70%
2.4.20-pre7 99.42 71%
2.5.34 74.31 93%
2.5.36 94.82 76%
IO Fullmem Load:
Kernel Time CPU
2.4.19 173.00 41%
2.4.20-pre7 146.38 48%
2.5.34 74.00 94%
2.5.36 87.57 81%
The full log for 2.5.34 is:
noload Time: 69.88 CPU: 99% Major Faults: 247874 Minor Faults: 295941
process_load Time: 71.39 CPU: 94% Major Faults: 204811 Minor Faults: 256001
io_halfmem Time: 74.31 CPU: 93% Major Faults: 204019 Minor Faults: 255284
Was writing number 4 of a 112Mb sized io_load file after 76 seconds
io_fullmem Time: 74.00 CPU: 94% Major Faults: 204019 Minor Faults: 255289
Was writing number 2 of a 224Mb sized io_load file after 98 seconds
mem_load Time: 138.05 CPU: 54% Major Faults: 204107 Minor Faults: 255695
and for 2.5.36 is:
noload Time: 69.58 CPU: 99% Major Faults: 242825 Minor Faults: 292307
process_load Time: 71.80 CPU: 94% Major Faults: 205009 Minor Faults: 256150
io_halfmem Time: 94.82 CPU: 76% Major Faults: 204019 Minor Faults: 255214
Was writing number 6 of a 112Mb sized io_load file after 104 seconds
io_fullmem Time: 87.57 CPU: 81% Major Faults: 204019 Minor Faults: 255312
Was writing number 3 of a 224Mb sized io_load file after 119 seconds
mem_load Time: 132.45 CPU: 56% Major Faults: 204115 Minor Faults: 255234
As you can see, going from 2.5.34 to 2.5.36 has had a minor improvement in
response under memory loading, but a drop in response under IO load. The log
shows more was written by the IO load during benchmarking in 2.5.36 The values
are different from the original 2.5.34 results I posted as there was a problem
with the potential for loads overlapping, and doing the memory load before
others made for heavy swapping afterwards.
contest has been upgraded to v0.34 with numerous small changes and a few fixes.
It can be downloaded here:
http://contest.kolivas.net
Comments?
Con.
next reply other threads:[~2002-09-18 14:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-18 14:46 Con Kolivas [this message]
2002-09-18 16:41 ` [BENCHMARK] contest results for 2.5.36 Andrew Morton
2002-09-18 16:50 ` Rik van Riel
2002-09-19 8:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-19 8:14 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-18 21:17 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-18 21:40 ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-18 23:55 ` NMI watchdog stability Jonathan Lundell
2002-09-19 12:07 ` John Levon
2002-09-19 13:20 ` Richard B. Johnson
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=1032360386.3d8891c2bc3d3@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox