Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 27 Jun 1999 23:35:02 +0200 (CEST) | From | Justin Ossevoort <> | Subject | Re: Perforamnce comparison between 2.3.8 and 2.2.10 |
| |
Ehh.. Wasn't the main performance gain for the multi-processor systems? I wasn't really awake when I read the thread, but that was something that I remembered.
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, Marc Mutz wrote:
> Hi out there. > > Finally managing to compile the 2.3.8 kernel (I forgot to exclude minix > support), I also ran a few benchmarks vs. 2.2.{9,10}. Instead of such > CPU intensive tasks a compiling the kernel, I decided to grep my 1Gig > /usr and to updatedb. Here are the results: > Kernel 2.2.9: > # du -s /usr > 1400546 /usr > # time updatedb > > real 2m15.953s > user 0m11.210s > sys 0m18.430s > # time updatedb > <n/a> > # time updatedb > > real 0m30.105s > user 0m10.910s > sys 0m17.750s > > Kernel 2.2.10: > # time updatedb > > real 2m20.636s > user 0m11.330s > sys 0m18.350s > # time updatedb > > real 0m29.365s > user 0m10.990s > sys 0m17.670s > # time updatedb > > real 0m29.778s > user 0m10.940s > sys 0m17.820s > # find /usr -type f -print |split > # time for i in x*; do cat $i|xargs grep Linus > /dev/null; echo $i > done; done > > real 4m31.633s > user 0m15.420s > sys 0m49.510s > > Kernel 2.3.8: > # time updatedb > > real 2m24.827s > user 0m11.540s > sys 0m19.420s > # time updatedb > > real 0m30.744s > user 0m11.330s > sys 0m19.160s > # time updatedb > > real 0m30.776s > user 0m11.290s > sys 0m19.300s > # find /usr -type f -print |split > # time for i in x*; do cat $i|xargs grep Linus > /dev/null; echo $i > done; done > > real 4m59.729s > user 0m15.060s > sys 0m52.150s > > As you can see, the fs performance of 2.3.8 w.r.t. to find/grep tasks > never challanges 2.2.x performance. The second and third updatedb runs > are almost entirely from buffers, i.e. there was very little disk > activity there. > > System specs: > AMD K6-2-300, 128M RAM, 2x4.5G IBM DDRS U2W SCSI @ Symbios Logic U-SCSI > /home,/opt,/usr: raid0 > /tmp,/var: linear append > /: just normal > > The kernels were almost identically configured, except: > 2.2.10 was with framebuffer, others not > 2.3.8 was w/o minixfs, others with > > So what would be a (real life) test that sees 2.3.8 *gaining* > performance over 2.2.x? > > Marc > Marc > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
-- -=( Justin Ossevoort )=- [iq-0@internetionals.demon.nl]
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |