[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Subject[MMTests] Threaded IO Performance on ext3

    Configuration: global-dhp__io-threaded-ext3
    Benchmarks: tiobench


    Some good results but some 3.x kernels were bad and this varied between
    machines. In some, 3.1 and 3.2 were particularly bad. 3.4 regressed on
    one machine with a large amount of memory.

    Benchmark notes

    mkfs was run on system startup. No attempt was made to age it. No
    special mkfs or mount options were used.

    The size parameter for tiobench was 2*RAM. This is barely sufficient for
    this particular test where the size parameter should be multiple
    times the size of memory. The running time of the benchmark is
    already excessive and this is not likely to be changed.

    Machine: arnold
    Arch: x86
    CPUs: 1 socket, 2 threads
    Model: Pentium 4
    Disk: Single Rotary Disk

    This has regressed in almost all cases although for this machine the
    main damage was between 2.6.32 and 2.6.34. 3.2.9 performed particularly
    badly. It's interesting to note that 3.1 and 3.2 kernels both swapped
    and unexpected swapping has been seen in other tests.

    Machine: hydra
    Arch: x86-64
    CPUs: 1 socket, 4 threads
    Model: AMD Phenom II X4 940
    Disk: Single Rotary Disk

    This is a mixed bag. For low numbers of clients, throughput on
    sequential reads has improved with the exception of 3.2.9 which
    was a disaster. For larger number of clients, it is a mix of
    gains and losses. This could be due to weakness in the methodology
    due to both a small filesize and a small number of iterations.

    Random read has improved.

    With the exception of 3.2.9, sequential writes have generally

    Random write has a number of regressions and 3.2.9 is a diaster.

    Kernels 3.1 and 3.2 had unexpected swapping.

    Machine: sandy
    Arch: x86-64
    CPUs: 1 socket, 8 threads
    Model: Intel Core i7-2600
    Disk: Single Rotary Disk


    Like hydra, sequential reads were generally better for low numbers of
    clients. 3.4 is notable in that it regressed. Unlike hydra, 3.1 was
    the first bad kernel for sequential reads unlikely hydra where it was
    3.2. There are differences in the memory sizes and therefore the filesize
    and it implies that there is not a single cause of the regression.

    Random read has improved.

    Sequential writes have generally improved although it is interesting
    to note that 3.1 was a kernel that regressed. 3.4 is better than 2.6.32
    but it is interesting to note that it has regressed in comparison to 3.3.

    Random write has generally improved but again 3.4 is worse than 3.3.

    Like the other machines, 3.1 and 3.2 saw unexpected swapping.

    Mel Gorman
    SUSE Labs

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-07-24 00:21    [W:0.027 / U:0.968 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site