Re: 7.0 CPU and Memory Performance

Tim Traver wrote:

Robert Watson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Tim Traver wrote:

I have recently had the opportunity to upgrade a few servers from old
versions of 5.4 to 7.0, and have seen some interesting data. Before
doing this, I wanted to take some benchmarks to see how the scripts
that I would run would fare between the two versions, and the results
are somewhat confusing...
There are potentially a lot of variables here, you migh want to try
fiddling with the following and see what difference it makes:

(1) Try both 4BSD and ULE in 7.0 -- they have different properties,
and at the
very least it would be nice to see what impact it has.

(2) Statically compile the 5.4 binary, and run the same binary on both
5.4 and
7.0 -- there have been lots of compiler changes, which might be
relevant.

Also, can you confirm that you're running either 32-bit or 64-bit
kernels consistently on both versions of FreeBSD?

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge


Robert,

ok, I looked and it looks like the port compiles statically, and I was
able to grab the binary from the old disk and move it over to the new one...

here is info now on how it is linked :

[root ~]# ldd ubench.5.4
ubench.5.4:
libm.so.3 => /usr/local/lib/compat/libm.so.3 (0x2807e000)
libc.so.5 => /usr/local/lib/compat/libc.so.5 (0x28099000)
[root ~]# ldd /usr/local/bin/ubench
/usr/local/bin/ubench:
libm.so.5 => /lib/libm.so.5 (0x2807f000)
libc.so.7 => /lib/libc.so.7 (0x28094000)

where ubench is the locally compiled one...

For reference, here are the old stats
FreeBSD 5.4 - CPU 112,721 - MEM - 146,483
FreeBSD 7.0 - CPU 177,339 - MEM - 95,920

And here is the run of the ubench.5.4 binary:
FreeBSD 7.0 - CPU 139,623 - MEM - 207,180

And a rerun of the FreeBSD 7.0 ubench making sure there is absolutely no activity on the box
FreeBSD 7.0 - CPU 200,562 - MEM - 107,695

That run is a little better than the previous one, but there seems to still be quite a difference in the memory tests...

Does that show anything ????

It shows that if there is a difference it is probably in userland, not the kernel. The obvious guess is the new malloc in 7.0. As for whether it indicates a bug, someone would have to look more closely at what ubench does. The author's description of his benchmark doesn't inspire confidence: it does "rather senseless memory allocation and memory to memory copying operations for another 3 mins concurrently using several processes".

Kris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 7.0 CPU and Memory Performance
    ... Before doing this, I wanted to take some benchmarks to see how the scripts that I would run would fare between the two versions, and the results are somewhat confusing... ... Statically compile the 5.4 binary, and run the same binary on both ... Robert N M Watson ... Now, I really don't know exactly what the ubench program is doing, but I think the description says that it is doing random integer and floating point operations for the CPU tests, and random memory allocation and copying for the memory test. ...
    (freebsd-performance)
  • Re: Print statement within If-Then block changes output!!!????
    ... assembler/compiler into producing it. ... ordinary variable because all of them are BCD floating point. ... POKE a value into memory, ... It sounds like they're supposed to compile. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: forth and virtual memory
    ... too, maybe even the same order, so ordering the blocks by allocation ... on systems with too little memory ... What Java is known for, and what it actually does, are two distinct ... My measurements indicate that some of the benchmarks (from SpecJVM98, ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: Dual Core or Quad Core when running Quartus 7.1
    ... You're right about the importance of memory sub-system performance -- ... You have to tell Quartus that you want it to use more than one ... that compile time ...
    (comp.arch.fpga)
  • Re: [PATCH 0/11] Avoiding fragmentation with subzone groupings v26
    ... a standard kernel was getting < 1% of memory as large ... I don't have a list of real workloads that break anti-frag yet so so I want to get anti-frag out there and see does it help people who really care about hugepages or not. ... Small differences in aim9 seem to make very little difference to other benchmarks like kbuild. ... echo Attempting load of hugetlbfs module ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
Quantcast