From: "Paolo Ciarrocchi" <ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org>
To: akpm@digeo.com, vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua,
conma@kolivas.net, riel@conectiva.com.br
Cc: ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Poor performance with 2.5.52, load and process in D state
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 08:03:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021226000308.31344.qmail@linuxmail.org> (raw)
Hi Andrew/Rik/Con/all
Andrew, I promised you to run a few tests
using osdb (www.osdb.org with 40M of data)against both
2.4.19 and 2.5.52 booting the kernel with the
mem=XXM paramter.
I also played with the /proc/sys/vm/swappiness
parameter, I've ran all the tests with the standard
swappiness value (60), with 80 and 100.
100 means the 2.4 behaviour, isn't it ?
Looking at the results it seems that the "standard"
value is too low, probably 80 is the best one.
What do you think ?
There is no a big difference in the Time results
between 80 and 100 but looking at the top output
while I was running the tests I saw a big difference
in the swap usage.
Con, could you please run the contest test against
2.5.52 or .53 platying with the swappines parameter ?
Below the results of my test, please let me know if
you want I run more tests or if you need more information.
Ciao,
Paolo
-- By Memory Size --
Kernel Memory Swappiness Time
2.4.19 24 x 3371.98 seconds (0:56:11.98)
2.5.52 24 60 4585.03 seconds (1:16:25.03)
2.5.52 24 80 4285.98 seconds (1:11:25.98)
2.5.52 24 100 3633.64 seconds (1:00:33.64)
2.4.19 40 x 809.39 seconds (0:13:29.39)
2.5.52 40 60 3771.85 seconds (1:02:51.85)
2.5.52 40 80 3342.82 seconds (0:55:42.82)
2.5.52 40 100 855.22 seconds (0:14:15.22)
2.4.19 64 x 796.03 seconds (0:13:16.03)
2.5.52 64 60 840.41 seconds (0:14:00.41)
2.5.52 64 80 828.59 seconds (0:13:48.59)
2.5.52 64 100 833.92 seconds (0:13:53.92)
2.4.19 80 x 790.80 seconds (0:13:10.80)
2.5.52 80 60 788.65 seconds (0:13:08.65)
2.5.52 80 80 790.54 seconds (0:13:10.54)
2.5.52 80 100 793.79 seconds (0:13:13.79)
2.5.52 96 60 779.54 seconds (0:12:59.54)
2.5.52 96 80 782.86 seconds (0:13:02.86)
2.5.52 96 100 778.81 seconds (0:12:58.81)
2.4.19 all x 778.65 seconds (0:12:58.65)
2.5.52 all 60 768.98 seconds (0:12:48.98)
2.5.52 all 80 770.43 seconds (0:12:50.43)
2.5.52 all 100 771.76 seconds (0:12:51.76)
-- By kernel version --
2.4.19 24 x 3371.98 seconds (0:56:11.98)
2.4.19 40 x 809.39 seconds (0:13:29.39)
2.4.19 64 x 796.03 seconds (0:13:16.03)
2.4.19 80 x 790.80 seconds (0:13:10.80)
2.4.19 all x 778.65 seconds (0:12:58.65)
2.5.52 24 60 4585.03 seconds (1:16:25.03)
2.5.52 40 60 3771.85 seconds (1:02:51.85)
2.5.52 64 60 840.41 seconds (0:14:00.41)
2.5.52 80 60 788.65 seconds (0:13:08.65)
2.5.52 96 60 779.54 seconds (0:12:59.54)
2.5.52 all 60 768.98 seconds (0:12:48.98)
2.5.52 24 80 4285.98 seconds (1:11:25.98)
2.5.52 40 80 3342.82 seconds (0:55:42.82)
2.5.52 64 80 828.59 seconds (0:13:48.59)
2.5.52 80 80 790.54 seconds (0:13:10.54)
2.5.52 96 80 782.86 seconds (0:13:02.86)
2.5.52 all 80 770.43 seconds (0:12:50.43)
2.5.52 24 100 3633.64 seconds (1:00:33.64)
2.5.52 40 100 855.22 seconds (0:14:15.22)
2.5.52 64 100 833.92 seconds (0:13:53.92)
2.5.52 80 100 793.79 seconds (0:13:13.79)
2.5.52 96 100 778.81 seconds (0:12:58.81)
2.5.52 all 100 771.76 seconds (0:12:51.76)
--
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze
next reply other threads:[~2002-12-26 1:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-12-26 0:03 Paolo Ciarrocchi [this message]
2002-12-26 7:44 ` Andrew Morton
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-12-26 9:45 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-12-26 9:26 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-12-26 9:34 ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-23 12:44 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-12-22 17:09 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-12-22 11:37 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-12-23 11:29 ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-25 13:12 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-12-25 8:41 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20021226000308.31344.qmail@linuxmail.org \
--to=ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=conma@kolivas.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
--cc=vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome