lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.693 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site