From: Jesse Wyant <jrwyant@frx774.dhs.org>
To: jamagallon@able.es (J.A. Magallon)
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (Lista Linux-Kernel)
Subject: Re: P4 Xeon summary inquiry
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 00:12:28 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200205070712.g477CSt00441@frx774.dhs.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020506232721.GC3019@werewolf.able.es> from "J.A. Magallon" at May 07, 2002 01:27:21 AM
I just put together a SuperMicro P4DCE+ (Intel i860/ICH2/CS4299 AC'97 codec
[use the OSS i810_audio or ALSA's intel_8x0 or whatever it is]) with 1GB of
Samsung RDRAM and two 2.0GHz Xeon (Prestonias.) Currently 2.4.19-pre7 with
Ingo's interrupt patch, and timer balancing patch. Running on ext3, using
RedHat 7.2.
I also tried the acpismp=force option to get into hyperthreading
(successfully--it appears as though I have 4 CPUs), and the overall system
seems just as fast as with the HT disabled. Qualitatively: kernel compile
with HT disabled, using
'make -j2 bzImage; make -j2 modules; make modules_install; sync'
results in compile times around 3 minutes 45 seconds or so. With HT enabled,
and using -j4 instead of -j2, my compile time comes down to around 2:57 or
so--a significant improvement.
However, 'dnetc's throughput in RC5 keys/s is much lower with HT enabled:
it runs 4 clients, and each client chugs through about 720kKeys/s.
With HT disabled, the two dnetc clients run through 2.8MKeys/s each. (So
it's around half as fast with HT enabled!) When I'm finished downloading
RedHat 7.3, I'll reboot into Hyperthreading-enabled mode, and run
'dnetc --benchmark' to confirm this.
Haven't had a chance to benchmark more than that yet. But no gross issues
when running with HT enabled. (Tribes2, Q3A and RTCW feel equally fast
between the two configurations.)
-jesse
> I am trying to make a dual P4-Xeon box (P4DCE, Intel 869) work optimally.
> After some search in list archives, I have found this points:
>
> - You need ACPI, and boot with acpismp=force, to have hyperthreading
> (see 4 cpus)
> - To balance interrupts, a patch from Ingo is needed
> - To balance timers, one other patch was needed, but this in included
> in 2.4.19-pre8 (do not know since which pre is there)
>
> I tried to boot with acpismp=force, but then performance was dog slow,
> I could count lines scrolling on a rxvt.
> I checked mtrr and look like working. Box has 1Gb of ram, so kernel
> is using CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G=y.
> Kernel is the standard highmem Mandrake kernel in 8.2
> (2.4.18-6mdkenterprise) that is mainly a plain 2.4.18 with some
> .19-pre1 fixes.
>
> Any correction ? Any known problem in 2.4.18 about this issue that
> has bee corrected in pres for 19 ?
>
> Any idea about the performance loss ?
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-07 7:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-06 23:27 P4 Xeon summary inquiry J.A. Magallon
2002-05-07 7:12 ` Jesse Wyant [this message]
2002-05-07 15:00 ` James Bourne
2002-05-07 15:58 ` Nicolae P. Costescu
2002-05-07 18:00 ` Bill Davidsen
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=200205070712.g477CSt00441@frx774.dhs.org \
--to=jrwyant@frx774.dhs.org \
--cc=jamagallon@able.es \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox