Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 02:30:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 02:30:21 -0500 Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.122]:45510 "EHLO pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 02:30:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 02:32:40 -0500 To: Jens Axboe Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: I/O tests using elvtune to improve interactive performance Message-ID: <20011120023240.B1509@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <138.49c8e42.29247804@aol.com> <20011117030611.A214@earthlink.net> <20011119080922.S11826@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011119080922.S11826@suse.de>; from axboe@suse.de on Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 08:09:22AM +0100 From: rwhron@earthlink.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 08:09:22AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > Interesting tests, thanks. I wonder if you could be convinced to do > bonnie++ and dbench tests with the same read_latency values used? Also, > -- > Jens Axboe Jens, I'm sure this isn't what you had in mind, but ... :) Kernel: 2.4.15-pre6 Test: dbench 775 on 5 partitions. Time ls -l on big directories. Test with read_latency to 8192 (default) and 32. Summary: Load average of 775 and console IRC clients perform great. Lower read latency reduces throughput, but big directory listings are faster. This is really a crazy test, but it's a testament to the amazing work of the kernel hackers. I was looking for the I/O load that makes interactive response poor. There are a couple growfiles tests in the Linux Test Project that do that with a load average of less than 5. dbench is different. The dbench load the kernel can handle is remarkable. Hardware: 1 Athlon 1333 1 GB RAM 1 GB swap 1 40 GB IDE disk A reasonable test may be dbench 36 or 144, which return: Throughput 90.636 MB/sec (NB=113.295 MB/sec 906.36 MBit/sec) 8 procs Throughput 56.0331 MB/sec (NB=70.0413 MB/sec 560.331 MBit/sec) 36 procs Throughput 25.7869 MB/sec (NB=32.2336 MB/sec 257.869 MBit/sec) 144 procs Instead, I figured out roughly how many simultaneous dbench processes would run with the amount of free disk space I have. 8:01pm up 53 min, 12 users, load average: 779.12, 778.68, 737.68 I had 3 console irc sessions up. Occasionally there was a very slight delay. "ls -l" on the other hand was very slow on big directories; timings are below. Summary: read latency=8192 compared to read latency=32 dbench 50 10% more throughput dbench 50 6% more throughput dbench 75 22% more throughput dbench 150 25% more throughput dbench 450 24% more throughput ls -l time 48% longer ls times are interspersed with dbench results in chronologic order. read_latency = 8192 ------------------- /usr/share/man/man3 real 30m48.908s # /home/dbench$ ./dbench 50 completes Throughput 1.91472 MB/sec (NB=2.39339 MB/sec 19.1472 MBit/sec) 50 procs # /usr/local/dbench$ ./dbench 50 completes Throughput 1.84434 MB/sec (NB=2.30543 MB/sec 18.4434 MBit/sec) 50 procs # /dbench$ ./dbench 75 completes Throughput 2.50039 MB/sec (NB=3.12548 MB/sec 25.0039 MBit/sec) 75 procs /usr/src/linux ls -laR real 10m11.953s # /usr/src/sources/d/dbench$ ./dbench 150 completes Throughput 3.51881 MB/sec (NB=4.39852 MB/sec 35.1881 MBit/sec) 150 procs /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi real 28m22.315s /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi real 12m27.915s # /opt/dbench$ ./dbench 450 completes Throughput 4.64194 MB/sec (NB=5.80242 MB/sec 46.4194 MBit/sec) 450 procs read_latency = 32 ----------------- /usr/share/man/man3 real 10m8.684s # /home/dbench$ ./dbench 50 completes Throughput 1.74518 MB/sec (NB=2.18147 MB/sec 17.4518 MBit/sec) 50 procs # /usr/local/dbench$ ./dbench 50 completes Throughput 1.73985 MB/sec (NB=2.17481 MB/sec 17.3985 MBit/sec) 50 procs /usr/src/linux ls -laR real 5m57.340s # /dbench$ ./dbench 75 completes Throughput 2.0441 MB/sec (NB=2.55513 MB/sec 20.441 MBit/sec) 75 procs /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi real 13m32.822s # /usr/src/sources/d/dbench$ ./dbench 150 completes Throughput 2.8047 MB/sec (NB=3.50587 MB/sec 28.047 MBit/sec) 150 procs /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi real 14m14.336s # /opt/dbench$ ./dbench 450 completes Throughput 3.74463 MB/sec (NB=4.68079 MB/sec 37.4463 MBit/sec) 450 procs Filesystems (test not running) ----------- Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hda12 reiserfs 4.2G 1.2G 3.0G 27% / /dev/hda11 reiserfs 15G 3.9G 11G 26% /opt /dev/hda5 reiserfs 10G 5.6G 4.9G 53% /usr/src /dev/hda6 reiserfs 5.2G 3.4G 1.8G 64% /home /dev/hda8 reiserfs 2.1G 200M 1.8G 10% /usr/local Conclusion: Load average 775! Box is solid. IRC clients perform great. Total throughput goes down as load goes up. It may have made more sense to do a shorter test with less processes and more values for read_latency, but it turned out this way. Hopefully it's entertaining, nonetheless. :) -- Randy Hron - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/