mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "K P" <kplkml@gmail.com>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@mbligh.org>
Cc: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: JVM performance on Linux (vs. Solaris/Windows)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:10:16 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <62a080740604131410p3f22f7afncd3096c49be41cf4@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <443EB70B.3080908@mbligh.org>

Besides, Specjbb_2005 doesn't do any IO or networking, and these should
not be factors in the result.

So although it's a simplistic benchmark where OS tuning may not provide as
much benefit as JVM tuning, it still doesn't explain why Solaris is ~15% higher
than Linux on the same hardware and JVM (I'm guessing that the tester did
not spend as much time tuning Linux as they did Solaris, hence the question).

-kp


On 4/13/06, Martin J. Bligh <mbligh@mbligh.org> wrote:
>
> > Note they ran the benchmark on an Opteron 285 instead of a Xeon with
> > 16 GB of memory.    Opteron peformance currently **SUCKS** with 2.6
> > series kernels under any kind of heavy I/O due to their cloning of the
> > ancient 82489DX architecture for I/O interrupt access and
> > performance.  Looks like the test was stakced against Linux from the
> > start.  Should have used a Xeon system.
> > AMD needs to get their crappy I/O performance up to snuff.  Looking at
> > the test parameteres leads me to believe there was a lot of swapping
> > on a system with already poor I/O performance.
> >
>
> Looks to me like it was the same h/w for Linux as Solaris, so I don't
> think that's much of an excuse ;-)
>
> M.
>
>

  reply	other threads:[~2006-04-13 21:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-04-13 14:53 K P
2006-04-13 15:56 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-04-13 18:21   ` Jan Knutar
2006-04-13 18:54     ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-04-13 20:23   ` David S. Miller
2006-04-13 21:01   ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-04-13 19:22     ` David Lang
2006-04-13 23:50       ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-04-13 20:39     ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-04-13 21:10       ` K P [this message]
2006-04-13 23:04         ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-04-14 22:36 ` Bogus Benchmark (was Re: JVM performance on Linux (vs. Solaris/Windows)) Linda Walsh

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=62a080740604131410p3f22f7afncd3096c49be41cf4@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=kplkml@gmail.com \
    --cc=jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbligh@mbligh.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®