From: Song Zhao <song.zhao@nuix.com.au>
To: Mark Hahn <hahn@physics.mcmaster.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Supermicro X5DL8-GG (ServerWorks Grandchampion LE chipset) slow
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:28:07 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200302240928.07841.song.zhao@nuix.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302221437250.2686-100000@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca>
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 02:43 pm, you wrote:
> > > > 10x 120GB WD HDD, ServerWorks Grand Champion LE.
> > > > I am running RH7.3 with 2.4.20 kernel. The performance of this box
> > > > is about half of an almost identical box (Supermicro X5DP8-G2 mobo,
> > > > E7501
>
> well, I've rarely seen anyone claiming good performance for any SW chipset,
> especially compared to i75xx's.
I wonder where the problem lies? Is it hardware/software?
>
> > Here is a rough comparison of E7500, E7501 and the ServerWorks Chipset:
>
> I don't really understand the column headed "E7500E7501". which is it?
> 7500 (dual PC1600) or 7501 (dual pc2100)?
>
> > | Benchmark | E7500E7501 | ServerWorks | GrandChampion LE |
> >
> > =========================================================================
> >=
> >
> > | Nbench (integer index) | 33.47 | 38.78 | 10.61 |
>
> oh, maybe the headers are just broken? I can readily believe that
You are right, the header is broken.
> 7500 is 33, 7501 is a little higher, and GCLE is a lot lower.
> remember that this benchmark spends most of its time in strcpy/strcmp...
>
> hmm, I'd be curious to see whether lmbench indicates the GCLE's memory
> latency is much higher than Intel's. your hdparm -t score indicates that
> the GCLE doesn't have a memory *bandwidth* problem.
Yeah, I noticed that too, buffer cache read is pretty impressive actually.
I haven't had a chance to run lmbench as it takes about 5 hours to complete.
Will probably do it within these couple of days.
next parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-23 22:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302221437250.2686-100000@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca>
2003-02-24 14:28 ` Song Zhao [this message]
2003-02-21 17:25 Song Zhao
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-21 11:20 Song Zhao
2003-02-21 1:34 Song Zhao
2003-02-20 10:21 ` Jurriaan
2003-02-21 3:01 ` Song Zhao
2003-02-20 12:51 ` Bruce Harada
2003-02-21 11:34 ` Song Zhao
[not found] ` <20030220110616.GA21293@middle.of.nowhere>
2003-02-21 11:39 ` Song Zhao
2003-02-20 14:57 ` Dave Jones
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=200302240928.07841.song.zhao@nuix.com.au \
--to=song.zhao@nuix.com.au \
--cc=hahn@physics.mcmaster.ca \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®