[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Mainline kernel OLTP performance update
    On Saturday 17 January 2009 05:11:02 Rick Jones wrote:
    > 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.

    You're right ;)

    But at least it is exercising the NUMA paths in the allocator, and
    represents a pretty common size of system...

    I can run some tests on bigger systems at SUSE, but it is not always
    easy to set up "real" meaningful workloads on them or configure
    significant IO for them.

    > > 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?

    Yes, Mbit/s. They were... hmm, sending throughput I think, but each pair
    of numbers seemed to be identical IIRC?

    > I love to see netperf used, but why UDP and loopback?

    No really good reason. I guess I was hoping to keep other variables as
    small as possible. But I guess a real remote test would be a lot more
    realistic as a networking test. Hmm, but I could probably set up a test
    over a simple GbE link here. I'll try that.

    > Also, how about the
    > service demands?

    Well, over loopback and using CPU binding, I was hoping it wouldn't
    change much... but I see netperf does some measurements for you. I
    will consider those in future too.

    BTW. is it possible to do parallel netperf tests?

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-19 08:47    [W:0.022 / U:77.356 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site