From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 8 11:55:22 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D475A16A41F; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:55:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org) Received: from efnet-math.org (efnet-math.org [69.60.109.125]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5033C43D46; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:55:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [151.28.120.133] (ppp-133-120.28-151.libero.it [151.28.120.133]) (authenticated bits=0) by efnet-math.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j78BtG2n029278 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Aug 2005 07:55:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1123466477.767.2.camel@spirit> References: <01F3BA1C-C7C6-41C7-AFE8-675FA972D1A3@FreeBSD.org> <1123466477.767.2.camel@spirit> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Suleiman Souhlal Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:55:05 +0200 To: Xin LI X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733) Cc: gnn@FreeBSD.org, performance@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Tarball of ported libmicro 0.3 available for testing... X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:55:22 -0000 Hello, On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:01 AM, Xin LI wrote: > =E5=9C=A8 2005-08-08=E4=B8=80=E7=9A=84 03:15 +0200=EF=BC=8CSuleiman = Souhlal=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > >> Hello, >> >> On Aug 6, 2005, at 3:25 PM, gnn@freebsd.org wrote: >> >> >>> I plan to make a port of this this weekend, but would like some >>> feedback on this set of benchmarks. If they're useful I think we >>> should make them part of a nightly benchmarking strategy. >>> >> >> In case you're interested, I ran it on a dual p4 xeon (without >> HyperThreading) from the netperf cluster, to compare the performance >> of RELENG_5, RELENG_6 and HEAD. >> You can find the results at http://people.freebsd.org/~ssouhlal/=20 >> stuff/ >> compare_tiger-3.html . >> It shows that RELENG_6 and HEAD are (in these tests) almost never >> slower than RELENG_5, and often more than 20% faster. >> > > Great work! BTW. Is there any clue about why pthread_128 looks =20 > slower > than RELENG_5 and then recovered in HEAD? I'm not sure, but I ran the benchmark on the same kernel several =20 times (after rebooting), and as gnn noticed, it seems like there is a =20= high variance for the tests that have 128k size things. Something =20 must be going on at those sizes. The results are at http://people.freebsd.org/~ssouhlal/stuff/=20 compare_HEAD.html -- Suleiman Souhlal | ssouhlal@vt.edu The FreeBSD Project | ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org