Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:11:02 -0800 | | From | Rick Jones <> | | Subject | Re: Mainline kernel OLTP performance update |
| |
Nick Piggin wrote: > OK, I have these numbers to show I'm not completely off my rocker to suggest > we merge SLQB :) Given these results, how about I ask to merge SLQB as default > in linux-next, then if nothing catastrophic happens, merge it upstream in the > next merge window, then a couple of releases after that, given some time to > test and tweak SLQB, then we plan to bite the bullet and emerge with just one > main slab allocator (plus SLOB). > > > System is a 2socket, 4 core AMD.
Not exactly a large system :) Barely NUMA even with just two sockets.
> All debug and stats options turned off for > all the allocators; default parameters (ie. SLUB using higher order pages, > and the others tend to be using order-0). SLQB is the version I recently > posted, with some of the prefetching removed according to Pekka's review > (probably a good idea to only add things like that in if/when they prove to > be an improvement). > > ... > > Netperf UDP unidirectional send test (10 runs, higher better): > > Server and client bound to same CPU > SLAB AVG=60.111 STD=1.59382 > SLQB AVG=60.167 STD=0.685347 > SLUB AVG=58.277 STD=0.788328 > > Server and client bound to same socket, different CPUs > SLAB AVG=85.938 STD=0.875794 > SLQB AVG=93.662 STD=2.07434 > SLUB AVG=81.983 STD=0.864362 > > Server and client bound to different sockets > SLAB AVG=78.801 STD=1.44118 > SLQB AVG=78.269 STD=1.10457 > SLUB AVG=71.334 STD=1.16809 > ... > I haven't done any non-local network tests. Networking is the one of the > subsystems most heavily dependent on slab performance, so if anybody > cares to run their favourite tests, that would be really helpful.
I'm guessing, but then are these Mbit/s figures? Would that be the sending throughput or the receiving throughput?
I love to see netperf used, but why UDP and loopback? Also, how about the service demands?
rick jones
|  |