From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Ubuntu 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, 64-bit Kernel Benchmarks
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:21:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B3C5F22.1080108@panasas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B3C1137.8060308@tmr.com>
On 12/31/2009 04:49 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Yuhong Bao wrote:
>> Given that Linus was once talking about the performance penalties of PAE and HIGHMEM64G, perhaps you'd find these benchmarks done by Phoronix of interest:
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae
>>
> I find these tests mirror my own experience with PAE, the benefit of having the
> nx hardware enabled justifies the few percent drop in performance I was able to
> find.
>
> I find the huge gain in web service hard to believe without a hint why a 64 bit
> CPU would be 15x faster. The disk, memory, and network wouldn't be faster, and
> the CPU intensive tests weren't significantly faster, so unless the systems were
> tuned differently where's the gain? Same feeling about the TP test, an order of
> magnitude faster on a test running the same application on the same hardware is
> hard to buy without an explanation.
>
Why? simple, Memory. This system must have lots of memory (see the HIGHMEM64G) so
lots of IO must be bouncing on a 32bit system, where in 64bit it is copy-less.
Just my guess, but I'm not surprised.
> The only obvious source I can think of is running the test load at 100Mbit on
> one test and Gbit on another, because I saw an early network driver do just that
> in negotiations with a switch.
>
Boaz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-31 8:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-31 1:29 Ubuntu 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, 64-bit Kernel Benchmarks Yuhong Bao
2009-12-31 2:49 ` Bill Davidsen
2009-12-31 8:21 ` Boaz Harrosh [this message]
2009-12-31 16:32 ` Bill Davidsen
2009-12-31 17:49 ` Pedro Ribeiro
2009-12-31 18:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-03 3:39 ` Yuhong Bao
2010-01-16 0:48 ` Yuhong Bao
2010-01-16 1:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-16 2:06 ` Yuhong Bao
2010-01-16 3:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-16 4:32 ` yuhongbao_386
2010-01-16 4:53 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-16 6:17 ` yuhongbao_386
2010-01-16 17:59 ` Bill Davidsen
2010-01-17 9:26 ` matthieu castet
2010-01-31 17:03 ` Robert Hancock
2010-01-16 12:33 ` Sitsofe Wheeler
2010-01-16 12:57 ` Robert P. J. Day
2010-01-16 17:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-03-01 1:31 ` Yuhong Bao
2010-03-01 1:38 ` Yuhong Bao
2010-01-16 8:46 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
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=4B3C5F22.1080108@panasas.com \
--to=bharrosh@panasas.com \
--cc=davidsen@tmr.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