From: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>
To: rwhron@earthlink.net
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mason <mason@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: Performance differences in recent kernels
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:03:23 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D7F14EB.4010803@namesys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20020911035400.GB26348@rushmore
We need to get Chris's patches into the tree, as they improve the write
performance for reiserfs a lot. (Chris! Send them in! ;-) )
Can we ask you to test again with these patches applied?
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mason/patches/data-logging
Can you test on equal partitions too?
AIM is a proprietary benchmark, yes? If we send you a copy of reiser4
next month, would you be willing to give it a run?
Hans
rwhron@earthlink.net wrote:
>Just to note a few differences in recent benchmarks on quad xeon
>with 3.75 gb ram and qlogic 2200 -> raid 5 array.
>
>For AIM7, the outstanding metrics are jobs/min (high is good),
>and cpu time (in seconds). The tasks column is equivalent to
>load average.
>
>AIM7 database workload
>
>Andrea's tree has the v6.0 qlogic driver which helps i/o a lot.
>It's the only tree with that driver atm. The other trees look
>pretty similar at load averages of 32 and 256.
>
>
>kernel Tasks Jobs/Min Real CPU
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 32 555.4 342.2 146.1
>2.4.20-pre5 32 470.7 403.8 147.2
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 32 472.0 402.7 142.4
>2.5.33-mm5 32 474.4 400.7 144.2
>
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 256 905.2 1679.9 931.9
>2.4.20-pre5 256 769.1 1977.0 1048.5
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 256 766.4 1984.2 945.5
>2.5.33-mm5 256 763.0 1992.9 1020.8
>
>
>AIM7 file server workload
>
>Interesting here to note that with low load averages,
>2.5.33-mm5 is on top, but as load average increases, -aa is
>ahead.
>
>kernel Tasks Jobs/Min Real CPU
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 4 131.6 184.2 45.5
>2.4.20-pre5 4 132.7 182.7 44.1
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 4 132.7 182.6 46.0
>2.5.33-mm5 4 140.4 172.6 37.7
>
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 32 264.8 732.3 219.1
>2.4.20-pre5 32 230.5 841.5 265.7
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 32 227.7 851.6 257.6
>2.5.33-mm5 32 229.8 843.7 224.7
>
>
>AIM7 shared multiuser workload
>
>This is more cpu intensive than the other aim7 workloads.
>2.5.33-mm5 is using a lot more cpu time. That may be a bug in
>the workload. I'm investigating that.
>
>
>kernel Tasks Jobs/Min Real CPU
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 64 2319.6 160.6 163.8
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 64 1960.4 190.0 164.8
>2.4.20-pre5 64 1980.3 188.1 185.1
>2.5.33-mm5 64 1461.2 254.9 566.2
>
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 256 2835.5 525.5 652.6
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 256 2444.2 609.6 656.6
>2.4.20-pre5 256 2432.8 612.4 701.0
>2.5.33-mm5 256 1890.5 788.1 2316.4
>
>
>IRMAN - interactive response measurement.
>2.5.33-mm5 has much lower max response time for file io.
>The standard deviation is very low too (which is good).
>
> FILE_IO Response time measurements (milliseconds)
> Max Min Avg StdDev
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 40.603 0.008 0.009 0.043
>2.4.20-pre5 52.405 0.009 0.011 0.080
>2.5.33-mm5 2.955 0.008 0.010 0.004
>
>
>autoconf-2.53 build (12 times) creates about 1.2 million processes.
>It's a good fork test. rmap slows this one down. There is a healthy
>difference between the rmap in 2.5.33-mm5 and 2.4.20-pre4-ac1.
>
>kernel seconds (smaller is better)
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 856.4
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 727.2
>2.4.20-pre5 718.4
>2.5.33 799.2
>2.5.33-mm5 782.0
>
>
>Time to build the kernel 12 times. Not a lot of difference here.
>
>kernel seconds
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 718.8
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 735.8
>2.4.20-pre5 728.1
>2.5.33 728.2
>2.5.33-mm5 736.8
>
>
>The Open Source database benchmark doesn't vary much between trees.
>
>
>dbench on various filesystems. This isn't meant to compare
>filesystem because the disk geometry is different for each fs.
>
>rmap has generally not done well on dbench when the process
>count is high, but 2.5.33* on ext2 and ext3 really smokes at
>64 processes.
>
>dbench ext2 64 processes Average (5 runs)
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 179.61 MB/second
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 140.63
>2.4.20-pre5 145.00
>2.5.33 220.54
>2.5.33-mm5 214.78
>
>dbench ext2 192 processes Average
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 155.44
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 79.16
>2.4.20-pre5 115.31
>2.5.33 134.27
>2.5.33-mm5 174.17
>
>
>dbench ext3 64 processes Average
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 97.69
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 59.42
>2.4.20-pre5 80.79
>2.5.33-mm5 112.20
>
>dbench ext3 192 processes Average
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 77.06
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 28.48
>2.4.20-pre5 58.66
>2.5.33-mm5 72.92
>
>
>dbench reiserfs 64 processes Average
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 70.50
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 57.30
>2.4.20-pre5 62.60
>2.5.33-mm5 77.22
>
>dbench reiserfs 192 processes Average
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 55.37
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 20.56
>2.4.20-pre5 44.14
>2.5.33-mm5 49.61
>
>
>The O(1) scheduler helps tbench a lot when the process
>count is high. The ac tree may not have the latest
>scheduler updates.
>
>tbench 192 processes Average
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 116.76
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 100.30
>2.4.20-pre5 27.98
>2.5.33 115.93
>2.5.33-mm5 117.91
>
>
>LMbench latency running /bin/sh had a big regression in the
>-mm tree recently.
>
> fork execve /bin/sh
>kernel process process process
>------------------ ------- ------- -------
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 186.8 883.1 3937.9
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 227.9 904.5 3866.0
>2.4.20-pre5 310.0 990.9 4178.1
>2.5.33-mm5 244.3 949.0 71588.2
>
>
>Context switching with 32K - times in microseconds - smaller is better
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 32prc/32k 64prc/32k 96prc/32k
>kernel ctx swtch ctx swtch ctx swtch
>---------------- --------- --------- ---------
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 35.411 65.120 64.686
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 30.642 49.307 56.068
>2.4.20-pre5 17.716 27.205 43.716
>2.5.33-mm5 21.786 49.555 63.000
>
>Context switching with 64K - times in microseconds - smaller is better
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 16prc/64k 32prc/64k 64prc/64k
>kernel ctx swtch ctx swtch ctx swtch
>---------------- --------- --------- ---------
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 50.523 111.320 137.383
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 50.691 92.204 122.261
>2.4.20-pre5 36.763 44.498 111.952
>2.5.33-mm5 27.113 42.679 124.907
>
>File create/delete and VM system latencies in microseconds - smaller is better
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The -aa tree higher latency for file creation. File delete latency is
>similar for all trees. 2.4.20-pre5 has the lowest mmap latency, 2.5.33-mm5
>the highest.
>
> 0K 1K 10K 10K Mmap Page
>kernel Create Create Create Delete Latency Fault
>---------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 126.57 174.70 256.64 62.50 3728.2 4.00
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 86.92 137.28 217.73 61.22 3557.2 3.00
>2.4.20-pre5 90.24 140.22 219.17 61.38 2673.8 3.00
>2.5.33-mm5 93.43 143.58 225.19 63.83 4634.7 4.00
>
>*Local* Communication latencies in microseconds - smaller is better
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>2.5.33-mm5 has significanly lower latency here, except for tcp connection.
>
>kernel Pipe AF/Unix UDP TCP RPC/TCP TCPconn
>----------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 36.697 48.436 55.3271 50.8352 80.8498 88.330
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 34.110 56.582 53.9643 54.7447 84.4660 86.195
>2.4.20-pre5 10.819 25.379 38.4917 45.2661 79.1166 86.745
>2.5.33-mm5 8.337 14.122 23.6442 35.4457 77.0814 111.252
>
>*Local* Communication bandwidths in MB/s - bigger is better
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>kernel Pipe AF/Unix TCP
>----------------- ------- ------- -------
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 541.56 253.43 166.08
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 552.99 240.54 168.34
>2.4.20-pre5 462.82 273.55 161.28
>2.5.33-mm5 515.64 543.57 171.01
>
>
>tiobench-0.3.3 is create 12 gigabytes worth of files.
>
>Unit information
>================
>Rate = megabytes per second
>CPU% = percentage of CPU used during the test
>Latency = milliseconds
>Lat% = percent of requests that took longer than 10 seconds
>CPU Eff = Rate divided by CPU% - throughput per cpu load
>
>Sequential Reads ext2
>2.5.33-mm5 has much lower max latency when the thread count is high for
>sequentional reads. The qlogic driver in -aa helps a lot here too.
>
> Num Avg Maximum Lat% CPU
>Kernel Thr Rate (CPU%) Latency Latency >10s Eff
>------------------ --- ---------------------------------------------------
>
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 1 51.21 28.87% 0.226 103.26 0.00000 177
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 1 34.14 17.25% 0.341 851.34 0.00000 198
>2.4.20-pre5 1 33.68 20.36% 0.345 110.11 0.00000 165
>2.5.33 1 25.36 13.67% 0.460 1512.99 0.00000 185
>2.5.33-mm5 1 31.73 14.80% 0.367 853.99 0.00000 214
>
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 256 40.68 25.39% 64.084 107977.97 0.36264 160
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 256 34.51 19.63% 51.031 845159.88 0.02919 176
>2.4.20-pre5 256 31.89 22.95% 57.236 849792.70 0.03459 139
>2.5.33 256 24.54 14.46% 94.422 449274.89 0.09794 170
>2.5.33-mm5 256 22.39 18.56% 104.515 24623.21 0.00000 121
>
>Sequential Writes ext2
>There is a dramatic reduction in cpu utilization in 2.5.33-mm5 and increase in
>throughput compared to 2.5.33 when thread count is high.
>
> Num Avg Maximum Lat% CPU
>Kernel Thr Rate (CPU%) Latency Latency >10s Eff
>------------------ --- ---------------------------------------------------
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 128 37.40 45.99% 32.405 46333.30 0.00105 81
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 128 34.01 36.94% 40.121 47331.57 0.00058 92
>2.4.20-pre5 128 32.98 49.33% 39.692 52093.19 0.01446 67
>2.5.33 128 12.17 222.9% 108.966 910455.61 0.19503 5
>2.5.33-mm5 128 30.78 30.03% 32.973 909931.81 0.07858 102
>
>
>Sequential Reads ext3
>2.5.33-mm5 has a more graceful degradation in throughput on ext3.
>Fairness is better too.
>
> Num Avg Maximum Lat% CPU
>Kernel Thr Rate (CPU%) Latency Latency >10s Eff
>------------------ --- ---------------------------------------------------
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 1 51.13 29.59% 0.227 460.92 0.00000 173
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 1 34.12 17.37% 0.341 1019.65 0.00000 196
>2.4.20-pre5 1 33.28 20.62% 0.350 137.44 0.00000 161
>2.5.33-mm5 1 31.70 14.75% 0.367 581.89 0.00000 215
>
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 64 7.38 4.51% 98.947 20638.56 0.00000 164
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 64 6.55 3.94% 110.432 14937.49 0.00000 166
>2.4.20-pre5 64 6.34 4.16% 111.299 14234.83 0.00000 152
>2.5.33-mm5 64 12.29 8.51% 55.372 8799.99 0.00000 144
>
>
>
>Sequential Writes ext3
>Here 2.5.33-mm5 is great with 1 thread, but takes a hit at 32 threads.
>Latency is pretty high too. Cpu utilization is quite low though.
>
> Num Avg Maximum Lat% CPU
>Kernel Thr Rate (CPU%) Latency Latency >10s Eff
>------------------ --- ---------------------------------------------------
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 1 44.23 53.01% 0.243 6084.88 0.00000 83
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 1 37.86 50.66% 0.300 4288.99 0.00000 75
>2.4.20-pre5 1 37.58 55.38% 0.295 14659.06 0.00003 68
>2.5.33-mm5 1 54.16 65.87% 0.211 5605.87 0.00000 82
>
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 32 20.86 121.6% 8.861 13693.99 0.00000 17
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 32 28.33 156.6% 10.041 15724.46 0.00000 18
>2.4.20-pre5 32 22.36 114.3% 10.382 12867.96 0.00000 20
>2.5.33-mm5 32 5.90 11.67% 52.386 1150696.62 0.08252 50
>
>
>Sequential Reads on reiserfs
>Don't know what happened to the 2.5 numbers here.
>-aa has much higher throughput at high thread count,
>but I believe that's a reiserfs change that is fixed in 2.4.20-pre6.
>
> Num Avg Maximum Lat% CPU
>Kernel Thr Rate (CPU%) Latency Latency >10s Eff
>------------------ --- ---------------------------------------------------
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 1 48.21 30.97% 0.241 104.82 0.00000 156
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 1 33.65 19.27% 0.346 136.95 0.00000 175
>2.4.20-pre5 1 35.25 23.00% 0.330 492.30 0.00000 153
>
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 32 36.27 25.59% 9.946 12613.17 0.00000 142
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 32 7.08 4.73% 51.894 5808.95 0.00000 149
>2.4.20-pre5 32 6.74 5.16% 53.395 8148.47 0.00000 131
>
>
>
>Sequential Writes reiserfs - max latency is very high for everyone here.
>
> Num Avg Maximum Lat% CPU
>Kernel Thr Rate (CPU%) Latency Latency >10s Eff
>------------------ --- --------------------------------------------------
>
>2.4.19-rc5-aa1 256 31.90 121.9% 67.227 166079.82 0.28051 26
>2.4.20-pre4-ac1 256 23.83 128.1% 84.309 135202.89 0.27039 19
>2.4.20-pre5 256 18.23 88.00% 76.265 258230.65 0.26893 21
>
>More details and more kernel tests at:
>http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-11 9:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-11 3:54 Performance differences in recent kernels rwhron
2002-09-11 5:59 ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-11 10:03 ` Hans Reiser [this message]
2002-09-11 14:50 ` Randy.Dunlap
2002-09-11 16:57 ` Hans Reiser
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-12 3:11 rwhron
2002-09-12 3:45 rwhron
2002-09-12 11:41 ` Hans Reiser
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=3D7F14EB.4010803@namesys.com \
--to=reiser@namesys.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mason@namesys.com \
--cc=rwhron@earthlink.net \
/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