lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: qsbench on old kernels
Date
I use MSVC on windows 2000 and use Release build.
However I realy forgot turn on optimization in gcc.
When I compiled qsbench with -O2 situation was a little changed.

I have Pentium III (Coppermine) 800MHz with 512MB RAM
when qsbench runing with 90 million integers his fill 343 MB in RAM and swap
realy don't used.
localhost:~free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 513768 25412 488356 0 1724 13120
-/+ buffers/cache: 10568 503200
Swap: 514072 0 514072

localhost:~/test/qs_bench > time ./qsbench -n 90000000 -p 1 -s 14538
seed = 14538

real 1m2.093s
user 1m0.540s
sys 0m1.550s

I was running from the command shell under linux too.
That's more best results but windows has 48s on same operation however

Then I decide to try use swap. And run qsbench with -n 140000000
This is require 534Mb in ram
My results is:

localhost:~/test/qs_bench > time ./qsbench -n 140000000 -p 1 -s 14538
seed = 14538

real 2m46.062s
user 1m36.910s
sys 0m3.960s
----------------------------------
localhost:~/test/qs_bench > time ./qsbench -n 140000000 -p 1 -s 14538
seed = 14538

real 2m51.967s
user 1m36.670s
sys 0m3.810s

And under windows 2000:

seed = 14538
time = 511s

[System Summary]

OS Name Microsoft Windows 2000 Server
Version 5.0.2195 Build 2195
OS Manufacturer Microsoft Corporation
System Name STEP
System Manufacturer ABIT
System Model 6A69RA1K
System Type X86-based PC
Processor x86 Family 6 Model 8 Stepping 3 GenuineIntel ~806 Mhz
BIOS Version BIOS Rev:0.1
Windows Directory C:\WINNT
System Directory C:\WINNT\System32
Boot Device \Device\Harddisk0\Partition4
Locale Russia
User Name STEP\step
Time Zone N. Central Asia Daylight Time
Total Physical Memory 523760 KB
Available Physical Memory 442444 KB
Total Virtual Memory 1530844 KB
Available Virtual Memory 1313744 KB
Page File Space 1007084 KB
Page File C:\pagefile.sys

So in my conclusion. Windows have more performance in comparison with linux
when swap is't used. And when swap is start using linux be ahead like hell

On Saturday 13 October 2001 17:36, you wrote:
> I have to admit, I was curious to see what the respective performances
> would be; I tried the original program on my athlon700 with 256Mb ram
> and IDE disk under both a recent linux kernel and windows 2000 SP2.
>
> With 90 million integers being sorted the memory required is ~360 Mb
> so that I had to enable swap in linux(iirc the idea of the exercise
> was to measure performance under a swap load). Windows 2000 was set
> to use 400Mb of swap.
>
> Linux took 6 1/2 minutes, windows 2000 took 20+ minutes. This makes
> perfect sense to me - windows was running a full graphical shell, its
> memory usage amounted to about 70Mb without the program running, on
> the other hand I was running from the command shell under linux, and
> so the portion of data in swap was lower, decreasing drastically the
> number of slow swapouts/ins.
>
> From your results, it seems that the program is not swapping. In this
> case linux and windows 2000 should come up with identical numbers (as
> 95+% of time is spent in the user program).
>
> I suspect the difference therefore is in your qsbench - did you compile
> with optimization on linux, but use "Release build" on windows 2000?
> (Assuming you use MSVC for the windows executable).
>
> If this is the case, try
>
> gcc -O2 qsbench.c -o qsbench
>
> to produce a new linux executable; then the times should be the same.
>
> Alternatively try increasing the number of integers sorted until the
> program begins to swap, the performance should become dominated by
> the speed of the disk.
>
> I think a more interesting comparison would be where identical amounts
> of the program are in swap on both windows 2000 & linux - this could
> be achieved by passing mem= options to the linux kernel at boot to
> emulate the effect of MS's memory filling programs.
>
> Or maybe windows 2000 is 2x the performance of linux? I'm ready to be
> pleasantly suprised.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stepan Kalichkin" <step@ac-sw.com>
> To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 7:56 AM
> Subject: Re: qsbench on old kernels
>
> > Hi
> > I compiled qsbench under windows 2000
> > And get some interesting results:
> >
> > Under my linux kernel 2.4.9-ac18
> >
> > localhost:~/test/qs_bench > time ./qsbench -n 90000000 -p 1 -s 14538
> > seed = 14538
> >
> > real 1m50.442s
> > user 1m48.410s
> > sys 0m1.660s
> >
> > And under windows with same parameters:
> > seed = 14538
> > time = 48s
> >
> > --
> > seed = 14538
> > time = 47s
> >
> > --
> > seed = 14538
> > time = 48s
> >
> > May be this comparison is't correctly
> > but so large difference!
> > Any comments?
> > -
> > 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/

-
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: 2005-03-22 13:08    [W:0.048 / U:1.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site