![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:04 AM > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >>dbench is catching some attention. We just ran it with default > >>parameter. I don't think default parameter is the right one to use > >>on some of our configurations. For example, it shows +100% improvement > > > > never ever consider dbench a serious benchmark; the thing is you can > > make dbench a lot better very easy; just make the kernel run one thread > > at a time until completion. dbench really gives very variable results, > > but it is not really possible to say if +100% or -100% is an improvement > > or a degredation for real life. So please just don't run it, or at least > > don't interpret the results in a "higher is better" way. > > > > As a disk IO performance benchmark you are absolutely right. > > Some people like using it to test VM scalability and throughput > if it is being used on tmpfs. In that case the results are > generally more stable. Thank you for the suggestion, we will look into the options. I agree here as well, and I also don't consider dbench as a serious disk I/O performance benchmark. There are other workloads that we ran (IOzone, aiostress, and my favorite "industry standard database workload") which covers disk I/O side pretty well. - Ken - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-10-06 18:39 [W:0.916 / U:0.080 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||