Here are some results from running VolanoMark on different
versions of O(1)-scheduler based on 2.4.17.
VolanoMark 2.1.2 Loopback test,
8-way 700MHZ Pentium III,
1GB Kernel,
IBM JVM 1.3. (build cx 130 -20010626)
Throughput in msg/sec
KERNEL UP 4-way 8-way
========= ====== ====== ======
2.4.17 11005 15894 11595
2.4.17 + D2 patch 10606 23300 29726
2.4.17 + G1 patch 10415 23038 31098
2.4.17 + H6 patch 10914 22270 32300
2.4.17 + H7 patch 11018 23427 31674
2.4.17 + J2 patch 13015 23071 33259
Partha Narayanan
[email protected]
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Partha Narayanan wrote:
> KERNEL UP 4-way 8-way
> ========= ====== ====== ======
> 2.4.17 11005 15894 11595
> 2.4.17 + D2 patch 10606 23300 29726
> 2.4.17 + G1 patch 10415 23038 31098
> 2.4.17 + H6 patch 10914 22270 32300
> 2.4.17 + H7 patch 11018 23427 31674
> 2.4.17 + J2 patch 13015 23071 33259
thanks for the testing - i'm happy that it's the kernel with the best
interactive properties (-J2) that has the best VolanoMark results as well.
Ingo
On January 21, 2002 06:03, Partha Narayanan wrote:
> Here are some results from running VolanoMark on different
> versions of O(1)-scheduler based on 2.4.17.
>
> VolanoMark 2.1.2 Loopback test,
> 8-way 700MHZ Pentium III,
> 1GB Kernel,
> IBM JVM 1.3. (build cx 130 -20010626)
> Throughput in msg/sec
>
>
> KERNEL UP 4-way 8-way
> ========= ====== ====== ======
>
> 2.4.17 11005 15894 11595
>
> 2.4.17 + D2 patch 10606 23300 29726
>
> 2.4.17 + G1 patch 10415 23038 31098
>
> 2.4.17 + H6 patch 10914 22270 32300
>
> 2.4.17 + H7 patch 11018 23427 31674
>
> 2.4.17 + J2 patch 13015 23071 33259
I'm curious about the performance of the 4-way and 8-way systems. I know
nothing about this benchmark. IIRC correctly it simulates chat clients
connecting to a server and talking to each other. Is it a CPU, memory, or
disk bound benchmark? What is causing the 4-way machines to be only 2x the
performance of the 1-way machine and the 8-way machines to be < 3x the
performance? Is the system bus the limiting factor on those machines?
Curiosity aside, it looks like Ingo's scheduler is coming along nicely.
--
akk~
On January 21, 2002 19:55, Adam Keys wrote:
> I'm curious about the performance of the 4-way and 8-way systems. I know
> nothing about this benchmark. IIRC correctly it simulates chat clients
> connecting to a server and talking to each other. Is it a CPU, memory, or
> disk bound benchmark? What is causing the 4-way machines to be only 2x the
> performance of the 1-way machine and the 8-way machines to be < 3x the
> performance? Is the system bus the limiting factor on those machines?
Memory bus, lock contention, syncronization issues. SMP really isn't as
magical as people think after the overhead is taken in to account.
-Ryan
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:16:28 -0800
Ryan Cumming <[email protected]> wrote:
> On January 21, 2002 19:55, Adam Keys wrote:
> > I'm curious about the performance of the 4-way and 8-way systems. I know
> > nothing about this benchmark. IIRC correctly it simulates chat clients
> > connecting to a server and talking to each other. Is it a CPU, memory, or
> > disk bound benchmark? What is causing the 4-way machines to be only 2x the
> > performance of the 1-way machine and the 8-way machines to be < 3x the
> > performance? Is the system bus the limiting factor on those machines?
>
> Memory bus, lock contention, syncronization issues. SMP really isn't as
> magical as people think after the overhead is taken in to account.
Volcanomark is a Java(TM) chatroom benchmark: multiple rooms, where for each
room, every input from a client generates a write to every other client
(think broadcast storm).
chat (which is a C version of Volcanomark) is useful for testing, as is
hackbench2 (which is cut down to just exhibit the runqueue problem, and
doesn't even use threads).
Hope that helps,
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
> connecting to a server and talking to each other. Is it a CPU, memory, or
> disk bound benchmark? What is causing the 4-way machines to be only 2x the
none of the above: it's scheduler-bound: billions of runnable threads
that do almost nothing but wake up other threads. a fine example of
where to use coroutines, not kernel threads...
On Tuesday, 22. January 2002 00:03, you wrote:
> Here are some results from running VolanoMark on different
> versions of O(1)-scheduler based on 2.4.17.
>
> VolanoMark 2.1.2 Loopback test,
> 8-way 700MHZ Pentium III,
> 1GB Kernel,
> IBM JVM 1.3. (build cx 130 -20010626)
> Throughput in msg/sec
>
>
> KERNEL UP 4-way 8-way
> ========= ====== ====== ======
>
> 2.4.17 11005 15894 11595
[-]
Would you be so kind to redo it with 2.4.18pre2aa2 (Andrea's 10_vm-22) stuff?
Thank you very much.
Dieter
--
Dieter N?tzel
Graduate Student, Computer Science
University of Hamburg
Department of Computer Science
@home: [email protected]
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Dieter [iso-8859-15] N?tzel wrote:
> > KERNEL UP 4-way 8-way
> > ========= ====== ====== ======
> >
> > 2.4.17 11005 15894 11595
> [-]
>
> Would you be so kind to redo it with 2.4.18pre2aa2 (Andrea's 10_vm-22) stuff?
prediction: the results wont change a bit.
VolanoMark has no sensitivity on VM issues at all.
Ingo