Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:01:29 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: kian.mohageri@gmail.com, "Ivan Voras" <ivoras@fer.hr>, freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xeon 2.8GHz SMP/NOT test results Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10610160401u72748b2fi919994fb18f422e5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <egvn2j$fmv$1@sea.gmane.org> References: <fee88ee40610151610g4af70cbfi1b79ed256cc78995@mail.gmail.com> <egvn2j$fmv$1@sea.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2006/10/16, Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr>: > Kian Mohageri wrote: > > > I've never used sysbench (I essentially picked it randomly) so if you know > > it to be a crappy benchmark tool for this sort of thing, do tell. I'm also > > pretty new at testing performance in general, but I hope someone finds it > > useful anyway. > > Maybe you'll be interested in ports/benchmark/unixbench, especially the > context switch and shell scripts benchmarks? > > > http://www.zampanosbits.com/smp_tests/ > > Interesting results, especially for such an early version of the > processor (wrt HTT) - I'd expect much lower gain from HTT. While you're > at it, maybe you could add more results to your benchmark, like change > the timecounter to TSC, use various gcc optimization flags, twiddle > machdep.cpu_idle_hlt, use SMP kernel with HTT disabled in BIOS? What about PREEMPTION/FULL_PREEMPTION? Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10610160401u72748b2fi919994fb18f422e5>