Re: 2.4.18pre4aa1

rwhron
2002-01-25T03:20:30Z

> [snip results: -aa twice as fast as -rmap for dbench,
> -rmap twice as fast as -aa for tiobench]

Look closely at all the numbers:

dbench 64 128 192 on ext completed in 4500 seconds on 2.4.18pre4aa1
dbench 64 128 192 on ext completed in 12471 seconds on 2.4.17rmap12a

2.4.18pre4aa1 completed the three dbenches 277% faster.

For tiobench:

Tiobench is interesting because it has the CPU% column. I mentioned
sequential reads because it's a bench where 2.4.17rmap12a was faster.
Someone else might say 2.4.18pre4aa1 was 271% faster at random reads.
Let's analyze CPU efficiency where threads = 1:

Num Seq Read Rand Read Seq Write Rand Write
Thr Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%)
--- ------------- ----------- ------------- -----------
2.4.17rmap12a 1 22.85 32.2% 1.15 2.2% 13.10 83.5% 0.71 1.6%
2.4.18pre4aa1 1 11.23 21.3% 3.12 4.8% 11.92 66.1% 0.66 1.3%

Sequential Read CPU Efficiency
2.4.18pre4aa1 11.23 / .213 = 52.723
2.4.17rmap12a 22.85 / .322 = 70.962
2.4.17rmap12a was 35% more CPU efficent.

Random Read CPU Efficiency
2.4.18pre4aa1 3.12 / .048 = 65.000
2.4.17rmap12a 1.15 / .022 = 52.272
2.4.18pre4aa1 was 24% more CPU efficient.

Sequential Write CPU Efficiency
2.4.18pre4aa1 11.92 / .661 = 18.033
2.4.17rmap12a 13.10 / .835 = 15.688
2.4.18pre4aa1 was 15% more CPU efficient.

Random Write CPU Efficiency
2.4.18pre4aa1 .066 / .013 = 50.767
2.4.17rmap12a .071 / .016 = 44.375
2.4.18pre4aa1 was 14% more CPU efficient.

> It would be interesting to see the dbench dots from both
> -aa and -rmap ;)

All the dots are at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/dots/

--
Randy Hron