lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: Performance 2.4.8 is worse than 2.4.x<8 (SPEC NFS results sho w this)
Date
More results: 

2.4.7 with Dieter Nutzel's kupdated/bdflush ideas
http://lists.insecure.org/linux-kernel/2001/Aug/2377.html
2.4.7 with ext2
2.4.9-pre3
2.4.9-pre3 with ext2
2.4.9 (not good)

2.4.7 with Dieter Nutzel's kupdated/bdflush ideas
http://lists.insecure.org/linux-kernel/2001/Aug/2377.html
500 497 1.2 149158 300 3 U 5070624 1 48 2 2 2.0
1000 1005 1.4 300591 299 3 U 10141248 1 48 2 2 2.0
1500 1504 1.4 449815 299 3 U 15210624 1 48 2 2 2.0
peak IOPS: 63% of 2.4.5pre1
performance slightly worse (2%, could be within repeatability) than without
Dieter's ideas.

2.4.7 with ext2
500 497 0.9 149186 300 3 U 5070624 1 48 2 2 2.0
1000 1004 1.0 300202 299 3 U 10141248 1 48 2 2 2.0
1500 1500 1.1 448489 299 3 U 15210624 1 48 2 2 2.0
peak IOPS: 78% of 2.4.5pre1

2.4.9-pre3
500 497 1.3 149177 300 3 U 5070624 1 48 2 2 2.0
1000 995 2.0 298633 300 3 U 10141248 1 48 2 2 2.0
1500 1487 2.0 446234 300 3 U 15210624 1 48 2 2 2.0
peak IOPS: 55% of 2.4.5pre1

2.4.9-pre3 with ext2
500 497 1.5 149113 300 3 U 5070624 1 48 2 2 2.0
1000 1078 1.5 322280 299 3 U 10141248 1 48 2 2 2.0
1500 1512 1.6 452080 299 3 U 15210624 1 48 2 2 2.0
INVALID
peak IOPS: 57% of 2.4.5pre1
This test started having rpc problems late in the test. I had stopped the
reiserfs 2.4.9-pre3 test before getting that far, so I don't know if
2.4.9-pre3 would have the same problems.

2.4.9 (not good)
500 499 1.9 149185 299 3 U 5070624 1 48 2 2 2.0
1000 1007 4.8 302210 300 3 U 10141248 1 48 2 2 2.0
1500 1561 11.0 466752 299 3 U 15210624 1 48 2 2 2.0
INVALID
peak IOPS: 21% of 2.4.5pre1
response time kept increasing dramatically after the 1500 IOPS run, failing
after a few more tests

Erik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: HABBINGA,ERIK (HP-Loveland,ex1)
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 3:14 PM
> To: 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'
> Subject: re: Performance 2.4.8 is worse than 2.4.x<8 (SPEC NFS results
> show this)
>
>
> And the results for 2.4.9pre4 (not good)
>
> 500 492 2.6 147693 300 3 U 5070624
> 1 48 2 2 2.0
> 1000 1019 4.4 304713 299 3 U 10141248
> 1 48 2 2 2.0
> 1500 1475 6.1 442446 300 3 U 15210624
> 1 48 2 2 2.0
> peak IOPS: 22% of 2.4.5pre1
> TIMED OUT
>
> response time kept going up, only two more SPEC runs (2500
> IOPS) finished.
>
> Erik
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: HABBINGA,ERIK (HP-Loveland,ex1)
> > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 10:41 AM
> > To: 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'
> > Subject: re: Performance 2.4.8 is worse than 2.4.x<8 (SPEC
> NFS results
> > show this)
> >
> >
> > Here are some SPEC SFS NFS testing
> > (http://www.spec.org/osg/sfs97) results I've been doing over
> > the past few weeks that shows NFS performance degrading since
> > the 2.4.5pre1 kernel. I've kept the hardware constant, only
> > changing the kernel. I'm prevented by management from
> > releasing our top numbers, but have given our results
> > normalized to the 2.4.5pre1 kernel. I've also shown the
> > results from the first three SPEC runs to show the response
> > time trend.
> >
> > Normally, response time should start out very low, increasing
> > slowly until the maximum load of the system under test is
> > reached. Starting with 2.4.8pre8, the response time starts
> > very high, and then decreases. Very bizarre behaviour.
> >
> > The spec results consist of the following data (only the
> > first three numbers are significant for this discussion)
> > - load. The load the SPEC prime client will try to get out
> > of the system under test. Measured in I/O's per second (IOPS).
> > - throughput. The load seen from the system under test.
> > Measured in IOPS
> > - response time. Measured in milliseconds
> > - total operations
> > - elapsed time. Measured in seconds
> > - NFS version. 2 or 3
> > - Protocol. UDP (U) or TCP (T)
> > - file set size in megabytes
> > - number of clients
> > - number of SPEC SFS processes
> > - biod reads
> > - biod writes
> > - SPEC SFS version
> >
> > The 2.4.8pre4 and 2.4.8 tests were invalid. Too many (> 1%)
> > of the RPC calls between the SPEC prime client and the system
> > under test failed. This is not a good thing.
> >
> > I'm willing to try out any ideas on this system to help find
> > and fix the performance degradation.
> >
> > Erik Habbinga
> > Hewlett Packard
> >
> > Hardware:
> > 4 processors, 4GB ram
> > 45 fibre channel drives, set up in hardware RAID 0/1
> > 2 direct Gigabit Ethernet connections between SPEC SFS prime
> > client and system under test
> > reiserfs
> > all NFS filesystems exported with sync,no_wdelay to insure
> > O_SYNC writes to storage
> > NFS v3 UDP
> >
> > Results:
> > 2.4.5pre1
> > 500 497 0.8 149116 300 3 U 5070624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1000 1004 1.0 300240 299 3 U 10141248
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1500 1501 1.0 448807 299 3 U 15210624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > peak IOPS: 100% of 2.4.5pre1
> >
> > 2.4.5pre2
> > 500 497 1.0 149195 300 3 U 5070624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1000 1005 1.2 300449 299 3 U 10141248
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1500 1502 1.2 449057 299 3 U 15210624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > peak IOPS: 91% of 2.4.5pre1
> >
> > 2.4.5pre3
> > 500 497 1.0 149095 300 3 U 5070624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1000 1004 1.1 300135 299 3 U 10141248
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1500 1502 1.2 449069 299 3 U 15210624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > peak IOPS: 91% of 2.4.5pre1
> >
> > 2.4.5pre4
> > wouldn't run (stale NFS file handle error)
> >
> > 2.4.5pre5
> > wouldn't run (stale NFS file handle error)
> >
> > 2.4.5pre6
> > wouldn't run (stale NFS file handle error)
> >
> > 2.4.7
> > 500 497 1.2 149206 300 3 U 5070624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1000 1005 1.5 300503 299 3 U 10141248
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1500 1502 1.3 449232 299 3 U 15210624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > peak IOPS: 65% of 2.4.5pre1
> >
> > 2.4.8pre1
> > wouldn't run
> >
> > 2.4.8pre4
> > 500 497 1.1 149180 300 3 U 5070624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1000 1002 1.2 299465 299 3 U 10141248
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1500 1502 1.3 449190 299 3 U 15210624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > INVALID
> > peak IOPS: 54% of 2.4.5pre1
> >
> > 2.4.8pre6
> > 500 497 1.1 149168 300 3 U 5070624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1000 1004 1.3 300246 299 3 U 10141248
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1500 1502 1.3 449135 299 3 U 15210624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > peak IOPS 55% of 2.4.5pre1
> >
> > 2.4.8pre7
> > 500 498 1.5 149367 300 3 U 5070624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1000 1006 2.2 301829 300 3 U 10141248
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1500 1502 2.2 449244 299 3 U 15210624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > peak IOPS: 58% of 2.4.5pre1
> >
> > 2.4.8pre8
> > 500 597 8.3 179030 300 3 U 5070624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1000 1019 6.5 304614 299 3 U 10141248
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1500 1538 4.5 461335 300 3 U 15210624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > peak IOPS: 48% of 2.4.5pre1
> >
> > 2.4.8
> > 500 607 7.1 181981 300 3 U 5070624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1000 997 7.0 299243 300 3 U 10141248
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > 1500 1497 2.9 447475 299 3 U 15210624
> > 1 48 2 2 2.0
> > INVALID
> > peak IOPS: 45% of 2.4.5pre1
> >
> > 2.4.9pre2
> > wouldn't run (NFS readdir errors)
> >
>
-
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 12:57    [W:0.038 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site