From: Mary Edie Meredith <maryedie@osdl.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: DBT3-pgsql large performance improvement 2.6.6-rc1
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:50:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <409194AE.1000904@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1082416495.2890.77.camel@localhost
Mary Edie Meredith wrote:
.snip
>
>>Mary Edie Meredith <maryedie@osdl.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Performance in DBT-3 (using PostgreSQL) has vastly
>>>improved for _both in the "power" portion (single
>>>process/query) and in the "throughput" portion of
>>>the test (when the test is running multiple processes)
>>>on our 4-way(4GB) and 8-way(8GB) STP systems as
>>>compared 2.6.5 kernel results.
>>>
>>>Using the default DBT-3 options (ie using LVM, ext2,
>>>PostgreSQL version 7.4.1)
>>>
>>>Note: Bigger numbers are better.
>>>
>>>Kernel....Runid..CPUs.Power..%incP.Thruput %incT
>>>2.6.5 291308 4 97.08 base 120.46 base
>>>2.6.6-rc1 291876 4 146.11 50.5% 222.94 85.1%
>>>
>>>Kernel....Runid..CPUs.Power..%incP..Thruput %incT
>>>2.6.5 291346 8 101.08 base 138.95 base
>>>2.6.6-rc1 291915 8 151.69 50.1% 273.69 97.0%
>>>
>>>So the improvement is between 50% and 97%!
>>
>>How odd.
Your instincts were right (as usual).
We took another closer look at this. It appears that
a change slipped into the kit around April 13, which
probably made this stunning performance difference
not the kernel.
Results of second run of the linux-2.6.5 kernel using the
changed test kit showed that the numbers are comparable
to the latest 2.6.6-rc3 release. Therefore,
it looks like the initial improvements posted were
most likely due to the change in datatypes
making the database size smaller, among other things.
....................Composite....Power...Throughput
initial linux 2.6.5 108.14 97.08 120.46
second linux 2.6.5 180.62 146.53 222.63
linux 2.6.6-rc3 181.83 147.16 224.68
Tests were compared on 4-way systems. (Bigger is better).
We will run the 8-way numbers over night to see if there is
any difference for those systems. We are also running some
IA64 results over night as well.
>>
>>
>>>Profile 2.6.5 8way throughput phase:
>>>http://khack.osdl.org/stp/291346/profile/after_throughput_test_1-tick.sort
>>>Profile 2.6.6-r1 8way throughput phase:
>>>http://khack.osdl.org/stp/291915/profile/after_throughput_test_1-tick.sort
>>
>>Odder. do_anonymous_page() is doing 10x more work in 2.6.6-rc1. And the
>>CPU scheduler cost has fallen a lot.
>>
>>Frankly, I can't think of anything in 2.6.6-rc1 which would cause either of
>>these things!
>>
>>
>>>What I notice is that radix_tree_lookup is in
>>>the top 20 in the 2.6.5 profile, but not in
>>>2.6.6-rc1. Could theradix tree changes be
>>>responsible for this?
>>
>>I would certainly expect 2x or even higher throughput increases from either
>>the writeback changes or the ext2&ext3 fsync changes.
>>
>>
>>>DBT-3 is a read mostly DSS workload and the throughput
>>>phase is where we run multiple query streams (as
>>>many as we have CPUs). In this workload, the database
>>>is stored on a file system, but it is small relative
>>>to the amount of memory (4GB and 8GB). It almost
>>>completely caches in page cache early on. So there
>>>is some physical IO in the first few minutes, but very
>>>little to none in the remainder.
>>
>>But you're not doing a significant amount of writing during the test, so
>>scrub that theory.
>>
>>Do you have full reports anywhere? I'd be interested in seeing a vmstat
>>trace from the entire run, both 2.6.5 and 2.6.6-rc1.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-29 23:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-04-19 23:14 DBT3-pgsql large performance improvement 2.6.6-rc1 Mary Edie Meredith
2004-04-29 23:50 ` Mary Edie Meredith [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-04-16 16:51 Mary Edie Meredith
2004-04-16 21:49 ` 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=409194AE.1000904@osdl.org \
--to=maryedie@osdl.org \
--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