lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.2.18Pre Lan Performance Rocks!
    On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:21:03AM +0200, Matti Aarnio wrote:
    > On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:36:32PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
    > > On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > > >Ummm, last I looked Linux held the Specweb99 record;
    > > >by a wide margin...
    > >
    > > ... but since then IBM/Zeus appear to have taken the lead:
    > >
    > > http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q3/
    > >
    > > But they were using a somewhat beefier machine - has anyone got Tux
    > > SpecWeb99 figures for a 12 CPU, 64 GB, 12 NIC system?
    >
    > Good grief, what monster hardware...
    >
    > Those are (of course) system results which give some impression of
    > how much users can pull out of the box.
    >
    > Trying to make them a bit more comparable, scaling the number with
    > the number of processors:
    >
    > Zeus 12x600MHz IBM RS64-III 7288 SpecWEB99 ~ 607 SpecWEB99/CPU
    > Zeus 4x375MHz IBM Power3-II 2175 SpecWEB99 ~ 544 SpecWEB99/CPU
    > TUX 1.0 8x700MHz Pentium-III-Xeon 6387 SpecWEB99 ~ 798 SpecWeb99/CPU
    > IIS 2x800MHz Pentium-III-Xeon 1060 SpecWEB99 ~ 530 SpecWEB99/CPU
    > IIS 1x700MHz Pentium-III-Xeon 971 SpecWEB99 = 971 SpecWEB99/CPU
    >
    > Ok, more workers to do the thing, but each can achieve a bit less in
    > the IBM/Zeus case than TUX 1.0. The smaller IBM/Zeus test case with
    > older and slower processors yields almost as good results per CPU as
    > the big one. CPU clock speed increase has been lost into inter-CPU
    > collisions ? (that is, bad scaling)
    >
    > The IIS results are also interesting in their own. Single-CPU IIS
    > yields impressive PER CPU result, but adding second CPU is apparently
    > quite useless excercise. Hmm... Can't be.. As if that DUAL CPU
    > result is actually run in single-CPU mode. The difference can
    > directly be explained by the clock rate difference..
    > (Surely the runners of that test *can't* make such an elementary
    > mistake!)
    >
    >
    > To be able to compare apples and apples, I would like to see single,
    > and dual CPU SpecWEB99 results with TUX. Then that apparent 20%
    > better "per CPU result" of the single-CPU IIS could not be explained
    > away with SMP inter-CPU communication overhead/collisions.

    You mean like:

    TUX 1.0 1x667MHz Pentium-IIIEB 1270 SpecWeb99
    TUX 1.0 2x800MHz Pentium-III-Xeon 2200 SpecWeb99
    TUX 1.0 4x700MHz Pentium-III-Xeon 4200 SpecWeb99

    (Check out quarter 2 instead of q3)

    Truly impressive figures imho.


    /David Weinehall
    _ _
    // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
    // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
    \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.025 / U:1.404 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site