Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S130998AbQJaXjp>; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:39:45 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S130406AbQJaXjf>; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:39:35 -0500
Received: from kleopatra.acc.umu.se ([130.239.18.150]:16617 "EHLO
	kleopatra.acc.umu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S130998AbQJaXjZ>; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:39:25 -0500
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:39:21 +0100
From: David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se>
To: Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@zmailer.org>
Cc: Paul Menage <pmenage@ensim.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.2.18Pre Lan Performance Rocks!
Message-ID: <20001101003921.B22518@khan.acc.umu.se>
In-Reply-To: <E13qj56-0003h9-00@pmenage-dt.ensim.com> <20001101012103.J833@mea-ext.zmailer.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i
In-Reply-To: <20001101012103.J833@mea-ext.zmailer.org>; from matti.aarnio@zmailer.org on Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:21:03AM +0200
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:21:03AM +0200, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:36:32PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > >Ummm, last I looked Linux held the Specweb99 record;
> > >by a wide margin...
> > 
> > ... but since then IBM/Zeus appear to have taken the lead:
> > 
> > http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q3/
> > 
> > But they were using a somewhat beefier machine - has anyone got Tux
> > SpecWeb99 figures for a 12 CPU, 64 GB, 12 NIC system?
> 
>   Good grief, what monster hardware...
> 
>   Those are (of course) system results which give some impression of
>   how much users can pull out of the box.
> 
>   Trying to make them a bit more comparable, scaling the number with
>   the number of processors:
> 
>   Zeus     12x600MHz IBM RS64-III     7288 SpecWEB99  ~ 607 SpecWEB99/CPU
>   Zeus     4x375MHz IBM Power3-II     2175 SpecWEB99  ~ 544 SpecWEB99/CPU
>   TUX 1.0  8x700MHz Pentium-III-Xeon  6387 SpecWEB99  ~ 798 SpecWeb99/CPU
>   IIS      2x800MHz Pentium-III-Xeon  1060 SpecWEB99  ~ 530 SpecWEB99/CPU
>   IIS      1x700MHz Pentium-III-Xeon   971 SpecWEB99  = 971 SpecWEB99/CPU
> 
>   Ok, more workers to do the thing, but each can achieve a bit less in
>   the IBM/Zeus case than TUX 1.0.   The smaller IBM/Zeus test case with
>   older and slower processors yields almost as good results per CPU as
>   the big one.   CPU clock speed increase has been lost into inter-CPU
>   collisions ?  (that is, bad scaling)
> 
>   The IIS results are also interesting in their own.  Single-CPU IIS
>   yields impressive PER CPU result, but adding second CPU is apparently
>   quite useless excercise.   Hmm... Can't be..  As if that DUAL CPU
>   result is actually run in single-CPU mode.  The difference can
>   directly be explained by the clock rate difference..
>   (Surely the runners of that test *can't* make such an elementary
>    mistake!)
> 
> 
>   To be able to compare apples and apples, I would like to see single,
>   and dual CPU SpecWEB99 results with TUX.  Then that apparent 20%
>   better "per CPU result" of the single-CPU IIS could not be explained
>   away with SMP inter-CPU communication overhead/collisions.

You mean like:

TUX 1.0	1x667MHz Pentium-IIIEB		1270 SpecWeb99
TUX 1.0 2x800MHz Pentium-III-Xeon	2200 SpecWeb99
TUX 1.0 4x700MHz Pentium-III-Xeon	4200 SpecWeb99

(Check out quarter 2 instead of q3)

Truly impressive figures imho.


/David Weinehall
  _                                                                 _
 // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander      \\
//  Project MCA Linux hacker        //  Dance across the winter sky //
\>  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    </   Full colour fire           </
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/