lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.045 / U:1.768 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site