[snip]
.
>
> I don't think anyone advocates sacrificing UP performance for 32 ways, but
> as he says it can happen .1% at a time.
>
> But it looks like 2.6 will scale well to 16 way and higher. I wonder if
> there are many regressions from 2.4 or 2.2 on small systems.
>
>
On the Scalable Test Platform, running osdl-aim-7, for the
UP case, 2.4 is a bit better than 2.6, this is consistent across
many runs. For SMP, 2.6 is better, but the delta is rather
small, until we get to 8 CPUS. We have a lot of un-parsed data from other
tests - might be some trends there also.
See http://developer.osdl.org/cliffw/reaim/index.html
2.4 kernels are at the bottom of the page.
Run # PLM # Kernel workload Max JPM max host
1-way lusers
278671 2083 patch-2.4.23-pre2 new_dbase 1066.75 18
stp1-003
278835 2087 2.6.0-test4-mm5 new_dbase 995.74 17
stp1-003
2-way
278690 2083 patch-2.4.23-pre2 new_dbase 1300.01 22
stp2-000
278854 2087 2.6.0-test4-mm5 new_dbase 1340.96 22
stp2-000
4-way
278437 2075 patch-2.4.23-pre1 new_dbase 5268.41 80
stp4-000
278805 2084 2.6.0-test4-mm4 new_dbase 5355.73 88
stp4-000
8-way
278651 2083 patch-2.4.23-pre2 new_dbase 6790.01 112
stp8-002
278722 2084 2.6.0-test4-mm4 new_dbase 8189.51 136
stp8-001
cliffw
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 08:51:56AM -0700, Cliff White wrote:
> On the Scalable Test Platform, running osdl-aim-7, for the
> UP case, 2.4 is a bit better than 2.6, this is consistent across
> many runs. For SMP, 2.6 is better, but the delta is rather
> small, until we get to 8 CPUS. We have a lot of un-parsed data from other
> tests - might be some trends there also.
> See http://developer.osdl.org/cliffw/reaim/index.html
> 2.4 kernels are at the bottom of the page.
Do you have profile data for these runs? Also, that webpage doesn't
have 2.4.x results.
-- wli
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 08:51:56AM -0700, Cliff White wrote:
> > On the Scalable Test Platform, running osdl-aim-7, for the
> > UP case, 2.4 is a bit better than 2.6, this is consistent across
> > many runs. For SMP, 2.6 is better, but the delta is rather
> > small, until we get to 8 CPUS. We have a lot of un-parsed data from other
> > tests - might be some trends there also.
> > See http://developer.osdl.org/cliffw/reaim/index.html
> > 2.4 kernels are at the bottom of the page.
>
> Do you have profile data for these runs?
For most of them, yes. The link to the profile data is at
the top of the report. Report sorted by load right now.
Also, that webpage doesn't
> have 2.4.x results.
>> 2.4 kernels are at the bottom of the page.
Scroll all the way down, look for the 'Other Kernels'
header. There are results for linux-2.4.22, 2.4.23-pre1 + pre2
for both the new_dbase and compute workloads.
Here's a link to 2.4.23-pre2 on an 8-way, if you don't see it..
http://khack.osdl.org/stp/278651/
cliffw
>
>
> -- wli
>
Cliff White wrote:
>[snip]
>.
>
>>I don't think anyone advocates sacrificing UP performance for 32 ways, but
>>as he says it can happen .1% at a time.
>>
>>But it looks like 2.6 will scale well to 16 way and higher. I wonder if
>>there are many regressions from 2.4 or 2.2 on small systems.
>>
>>
>>
>On the Scalable Test Platform, running osdl-aim-7, for the
>UP case, 2.4 is a bit better than 2.6, this is consistent across
>many runs. For SMP, 2.6 is better, but the delta is rather
>small, until we get to 8 CPUS. We have a lot of un-parsed data from other
>tests - might be some trends there also.
>See http://developer.osdl.org/cliffw/reaim/index.html
>2.4 kernels are at the bottom of the page.
>
Forgive my ignorance of your benchmarks, but this might very well
be HZ == 1000?