From: rwhron@earthlink.net
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: akpm@digeo.com
Subject: Re: IO scheduler benchmarking
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:35:47 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030225053547.GA1571@rushmore> (raw)
Executive question: Why does 2.5.62-mm2 have higher sequential
write latency than 2.5.61-mm1?
tiobench numbers on uniprocessor single disk IDE:
The cfq scheduler (2.5.62-mm2 and 2.5.61-cfq) has a big latency
regression.
2.5.61-mm1 (default scheduler (anticipatory?))
2.5.61-mm1-cfq elevator=cfq
2.5.62-mm2-as anticipatory scheduler
2.5.62-mm2-dline elevator=deadline
2.5.62-mm2 elevator=cfq
Thr MB/sec CPU% avg lat max latency
2.5.61-mm1 8 15.68 54.42% 5.87 ms 2.7 seconds
2.5.61-mm1-cfq 8 9.60 15.07% 7.54 393.0
2.5.62-mm2-as 8 14.76 52.04% 6.14 4.5
2.5.62-mm2-dline 8 9.91 13.90% 9.41 .8
2.5.62-mm2 8 9.83 15.62% 7.38 408.9
2.4.21-pre3 8 10.34 27.66% 8.80 1.0
2.4.21-pre3-ac4 8 10.53 28.41% 8.83 .6
2.4.21-pre3aa1 8 18.55 71.95% 3.25 87.6
For most thread counts (8 - 128), the anticipatory scheduler has roughly
45% higher ext2 sequential read throughput. Latency was higher than
deadline, but a lot lower than cfq.
For tiobench sequential writes, the max latency numbers for 2.4.21-pre3
are notably lower than 2.5.62-mm2 (but not as good as 2.5.61-mm1).
This is with 16 threads.
Thr MB/sec CPU% avg lat max latency
2.5.61-mm1 16 18.30 81.12% 9.159 ms 6.1 seconds
2.5.61-mm1-cfq 16 18.03 80.71% 9.086 6.1
2.5.62-mm2-as 16 18.84 84.25% 8.620 47.7
2.5.62-mm2-dline 16 18.53 84.10% 8.967 53.4
2.5.62-mm2 16 18.46 83.28% 8.521 40.8
2.4.21-pre3 16 16.20 65.13% 9.566 8.7
2.4.21-pre3-ac4 16 18.50 83.68% 8.774 11.6
2.4.21-pre3aa1 16 18.49 88.10% 8.455 7.5
Recent uniprocessor benchmarks:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/latest.html
More uniprocessor benchmarks:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/k6-2-475.html
--
Randy Hron
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html
latest quad xeon benchmarks:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/blatest.html
next reply other threads:[~2003-02-25 5:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-25 5:35 rwhron [this message]
2003-02-25 6:38 ` IO scheduler benchmarking Andrew Morton
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-25 21:57 rwhron
2003-02-25 12:59 rwhron
2003-02-25 22:09 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 5:23 Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 6:51 ` David Lang
2003-02-21 8:16 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-21 10:31 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-21 10:51 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-02-21 11:08 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-21 11:17 ` Nick Piggin
2003-02-21 11:41 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-21 21:25 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-23 15:09 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-21 11:34 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-02-21 12:38 ` Andrea Arcangeli
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=20030225053547.GA1571@rushmore \
--to=rwhron@earthlink.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--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