[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)
    Hi Mel,

    Mel Gorman wrote:
    > The OLTP workload results could indicate a downside with using sysbench
    > although it could also be hardware. The reports from the Intel guys have been
    > pretty clear-cut that SLUB is a loser but sysbench-postgres on these test
    > machines at least do not agree. Of course their results are perfectly valid
    > but the discrepency needs to be explained or there will be a disconnect
    > between developers and the performance people. Something important is
    > missing that means sysbench-postgres *may* not be a reliable indicator of
    > TPC-C performance. It could easily be down to the hardware as their tests
    > are on a mega-large machine with oodles of disks and probably NUMA where
    > the test machine used for this is a lot less respectable.

    Yup. That's more or less what I've been saying for a long time now. The
    OLTP regression is not all obvious and while there has been plenty of
    talk about it (cache line ping-pong due to lack of queues, high order
    pages), I've yet to see a detailed analysis on it.

    It would be interesting to know what drivers the Intel setup uses. One
    thing I speculated with Christoph at OLS is that the regression could be
    due to bad interaction with the SCSI subsystem, for example. That would
    explain why the regression doesn't show up in typical setups which have ATA.

    Anyway, even if we did end up going forward with SLQB, it would sure as
    hell be less painful if we understood the reasons behind it.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-02-03 20:05    [W:0.025 / U:10.596 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site