From: J Sloan <joe@tmsusa.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.5.8 final - another data point
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 01:14:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3CBA8BEC.4090707@tmsusa.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3CB9EF57.6010609@tmsusa.com> <3CBA6943.4000701@tmsusa.com> <3CBA7EC4.BA148E80@zip.com.au>
Andrew Morton wrote:
>It's not related to BIO. dbench is all about higher-level
>memory management, high-level IO scheduling and butterfly
>wings.
>
Yes, no doubt and a lot of other deep magic
which is only dimly perceived by the likes
of yours truly....
>>
>>Throughput 150.159 MB/sec (NB=187.698 MB/sec 1501.59 MBit/sec) 8 procs
>>Throughput 7.25691 MB/sec (NB=9.07113 MB/sec 72.5691 MBit/sec) 16 procs
>>Throughput 6.36332 MB/sec (NB=7.95415 MB/sec 63.6332 MBit/sec) 32 procs
>>
>
>It's obviously fallen over some cliff. Conceivably the larger readahead
>window causes this. How much memory does the machine have?
>
The box has 512 MB RAM -
>`dbench 64'
>on a 512 meg setup certainly causes readahead thrashing. You can
>stick a `printk("ouch");' into handle_ra_thrashing() and watch it...
>
hmm - OK, will try that -
Just for giggles, same machine with 2.4.19-pre4-ac4 -
Throughput 150.979 MB/sec (NB=188.723 MB/sec 1509.79 MBit/sec) 1 procs
Throughput 150.796 MB/sec (NB=188.496 MB/sec 1507.96 MBit/sec) 2 procs
Throughput 151.185 MB/sec (NB=188.982 MB/sec 1511.85 MBit/sec) 4 procs
Throughput 141.255 MB/sec (NB=176.568 MB/sec 1412.55 MBit/sec) 8 procs
Throughput 105.066 MB/sec (NB=131.332 MB/sec 1050.66 MBit/sec) 16 procs
Throughput 69.3542 MB/sec (NB=86.6928 MB/sec 693.542 MBit/sec) 32 procs
Throughput 32.4904 MB/sec (NB=40.613 MB/sec 324.904 MBit/sec) 64 procs
Throughput 30.4824 MB/sec (NB=38.103 MB/sec 304.824 MBit/sec) 80 procs
Throughput 19.0265 MB/sec (NB=23.7832 MB/sec 190.265 MBit/sec) 128 procs
>
>
>Patience. 2.5.later-on will perform well. :)
>
Oh, yes -
It's already quite usable for some workloads, and the
latency for workstation use is quite good - I am looking
forward to the maturation of this diamond in the rough
:-)
Joe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-15 8:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-14 21:06 2.5.8 final - J Sloan
2002-04-15 5:46 ` 2.5.8 final - another data point J Sloan
2002-04-15 6:35 ` J Sloan
2002-04-15 7:27 ` Andrew Morton
2002-04-15 8:02 ` J Sloan
2002-04-15 7:18 ` Andrew Morton
2002-04-15 8:14 ` J Sloan [this message]
2002-04-15 14:15 ` 2.5.8 final - Luigi Genoni
2002-04-15 14:55 ` David S. Miller
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-04-16 12:42 2.5.8 final - another data point rwhron
2002-04-16 18:31 ` J Sloan
2002-04-16 21:48 rwhron
2002-04-16 22:02 ` Andrew Morton
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=3CBA8BEC.4090707@tmsusa.com \
--to=joe@tmsusa.com \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--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