Re: numbers don't lie ...

In <E1GNOLq-000DC2-1Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Danny Braniss <danny@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
Im testing these 2 boxes, Sun X4100 and Dell-2950, and:

SUN X4100: Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 280 (2393.19-MHz K8-class CPU)
one 70g sata disk
DELL 2950: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.20GHz (3192.98-MHz K8-class CPU)
4 sata disks + raid0

they both run identical 6.1-STABLE.

my 'cpu benchmark' shows the amd being much better than the intel.
but, doing a make buildworld give interesting results:

dell-2950 : make -j16 TARGET_ARCH=amd64 buildworld : 24m17.41s real 1h3m3.26s
user 17m15.07s sys
dell-2950 : make -j8 TARGET_ARCH=amd64 buildworld : 24m8.28s real 1h2m59.38s
user 16m16.20s sys

sunfire : make -j16 TARGET_ARCH=amd64 buildworld : 24m21.38s real 49m6.68s
user 14m22.64s sys
sunfire : make -j8 TARGET_ARCH=amd64 buildworld : 23m47.69s real 48m53.58s
user 13m44.81s sys

which probably says something about my 'cpu benchmark' :-(

Yes - that it's not very good at predicting performance on a parallel
make. That's not surprising, as it's true of most benchmarks. You
might want to check out some of the benchmarks in the ports tree as
well.

but why is the user time so much different between the boxes?

What's the CPU configuration? The AMD is dual core - is that it? Could
the Xeon be dual-core and hyperthreaded, so it's got that many more
CPUs to contribute towards user time?

To illustrate, I have numbers for "make -j4" for a P4 with and without
hyperthreading enabled:

machdep.hyperthreading_allowed: 1 -> 0
50m55.99s real 35m28s.19 user 8m20s.02 sys
machdep.hyperthreading_allowed: 0 -> 1
38m48s.85 real 55m2s.43 user 12m27s.90 sys

Note the effect of the second CPU on the user time.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@xxxxxxxxx> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: numbers dont lie ...
    ... my 'cpu benchmark' shows the amd being much better than the intel. ... user 17m15.07s sys ... Note the effect of the second CPU on the user time. ...
    (freebsd-hackers)
  • Re: numbers dont lie ...
    ... my 'cpu benchmark' shows the amd being much better than the intel. ... user 17m15.07s sys ... i.e. since the hyperthreading virtual CPUs are not actually real CPUs, ...
    (freebsd-hackers)
  • Re: numbers dont lie ...
    ... my 'cpu benchmark' shows the amd being much better than the intel. ... user 17m15.07s sys ... That's why toy benchmarks are so evil. ...
    (freebsd-hackers)
  • uid/gid lookups slower on 6.2 than 4.x?
    ... sys 0m28.482s ... CPU: IntelXeonCPU 2.40GHz ... <ACPI PCI bus> on pcib0 ...
    (freebsd-stable)
  • Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
    ... Can you try a generic SMP kernel (called "SMP" in 6.x; ... relationship between how many CPUs are running and what the sys load is. ... Now I'm running yesterday's FreeBSD 7.0-BETA3 amd64 with GENERIC kernel. ... I.e. it seems to work good as a simple server with not so powerfull CPU. ...
    (freebsd-stable)