From: Omar Kilani <omar.kilani@gmail.com>
To: Maciej Soltysiak <solt@dns.toxicfilms.tv>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Performance Degradation: 2.6.8-rc4-bk1 vs RHEL 2.4.21-15.0.3
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:35:35 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f0cc3e3e04081206354300a561@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <295911442.20040812150922@dns.toxicfilms.tv>
Maciej,
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:09:22 +0200, Maciej Soltysiak
<solt@dns.toxicfilms.tv> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a wild guess, please try the same tests with 2.6 kernels with
> echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_window_scaling
This halves all my performance values.
I've just tried 2.6.8-rc4-mm1 with the same results.
I also tested the 2.6.8-rc4-mm1 kernel on a dual P4 Xeon 3.2GHz with
2MB Cache (with HT, so 4 logical processors) using 15K RPM U320
Fujitsu SCSI drives.
[root@minbar root]# hdparm -T -t /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 1852 MB in 2.00 seconds = 927.07 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 218 MB in 3.02 seconds = 72.29 MB/sec
[root@minbar root]# ./bw_tcp 127.0.0.1
0.065536 333.85 MB/sec
Ran this 5 times with no real difference in value.
[root@minbar root]# ab -n 100000 -c 2 http://localhost/index.html
This is ApacheBench, Version 2.0.40-dev <$Revision: 1.141 $> apache-2.0
Copyright (c) 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/
Copyright (c) 1998-2002 The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/
Benchmarking localhost (be patient)
Completed 10000 requests
Completed 20000 requests
Completed 30000 requests
Completed 40000 requests
Completed 50000 requests
Completed 60000 requests
Completed 70000 requests
Completed 80000 requests
Completed 90000 requests
Finished 100000 requests
Server Software: Apache/2.0.50
Server Hostname: localhost
Server Port: 80
Document Path: /index.html
Document Length: 51200 bytes
Concurrency Level: 2
Time taken for tests: 43.787872 seconds
Complete requests: 100000
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Total transferred: 852032704 bytes
HTML transferred: 825032704 bytes
Requests per second: 2283.74 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 0.876 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.438 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 19002.13 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 0 0.0 0 0
Processing: 0 0 0.1 0 12
Waiting: 0 0 0.0 0 1
Total: 0 0 0.1 0 12
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 0
66% 0
75% 0
80% 0
90% 0
95% 0
98% 0
99% 0
100% 12 (longest request)
Ran this 5 times with no real difference in performance.
So a single 2.8GHz P4 HT with a 2.4 kernel has better performance than
a dual Xeon 3.2GHz HT with a 2.6 kernel. I think the SCSI drives
eliminate the IDE results as a factor, so this looks like it's a net
loopback performance issue. Maybe. :)
> I am curious if it might be related to my problems with networking.
> turning of TCP WS tcp_window_scaling helps my problems.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
Regards,
Omar Kilani
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-12 13:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-12 12:45 Performance Degradation: 2.6.8-rc4-bk1 vs RHEL 2.4.21-15.0.3 Omar Kilani
[not found] ` <295911442.20040812150922@dns.toxicfilms.tv>
2004-08-12 13:35 ` Omar Kilani [this message]
2004-08-12 13:56 ` Omar Kilani
2004-08-13 0:57 ` Nick Piggin
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=f0cc3e3e04081206354300a561@mail.gmail.com \
--to=omar.kilani@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=solt@dns.toxicfilms.tv \
/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