Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:03:27 -0300 (EST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: 2.4 vs 2.2 performance under load comparison |
| |
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> Situation: SAP R/3 + SAP DB + benchmark driver running on a > single node 4 CPU SMP machine, tuned down to 1GB of RAM. > > Running the SAP benchmark with 75 users on 2.2 yields for the > first benchmark run: > > - 7018ms average response time > - 2967s CPU time in 1136s elapsed time > - ~500MB swap allocated > - ~1500 pages paged in/s, 268 pages/out/s on average > > Running the same benchmark on 2.4: > > - ~700ms average response time > - 1884s CPU time in 669s elapsed time > - ~500MB swap allocated > - ~50 pages paged in, ~212 pages paged out per second on average
> Rik, it's time for you to break it again *g*
Actually, in 2.4 we have one big VM balancing problem left.
We have no way to auto-balance between refill_inactive_scan() and swap_out(), so we can (and probably do) still end up paging out the wrong pages lots of times ... this is alleviated somewhat by having a 1-second inactive list, but still...
Another problem is a lack of smarter IO clustering, when we get that better I'm sure we can increase performance even more.
regards,
Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
- 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/
| |