Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Jun 1999 17:14:19 -0400 | From | Jordan Mendelson <> | Subject | Re: Dual Ethernet Slowness Causing Lousy Benchmarks? (was: A very informative benchmark.) |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Jordan Mendelson wrote: > > > It seems to me that all the benchmarks used dual ethernet controllers > > when they were benched against NT, and that's when the major degredation > > showed up in performance (at least that's what this C'T article > > suggests). > > if by 'major degradation' you mean 'it can only deliver 1500 hits/sec', > then yes. I mean, it must suck to be an OS that can serve only a meakly > 129 million web pages per day on a single box ;)
By major degradation I mean, we can't deliver the same performance as an NT box :)
> Such nonscaling is absolutely unacceptable to have around - so David S. > Miller has SMP-scaled the networking code in 2.3 already - on my box and > 2.3.9 TCP bandwith scales almost linearly on localhost - it shows almost > no scaling on 2.2.10. (i do not have 4 100mbit ethernet connections - yet)
This is what I see from the C'T article (approximates):
Linux 1 CPU 4K files: 950 requests/second NT 1 CPU 4K files: 940 requests/second
Linux 1 CPU 8K files: 850 requests/second NT 1 CPU 8K files: 710 requests/second
Linux 4 CPU CGI: 240 requests/second Linux 1 CPU CGI: 100 requests/second NT 1 CPU CGI: 25 requests/second NT 4 CPU CGI: 52 requests/second
Now here's the kicker:
Linux 4 CPU Dynamic Data/2 Eth: 1500 requests/second Linux 1 CPU Dyanmic Data/2 Eth: 1100 requests/second NT 4 CPU Dynamic Data/2 Eth: 2600 requests/second NT 1 CPU Dyanmic Data/2 Eth: 2100 requests/second
Now scalability in SMP isn't the problem here, as even with 1 CPU we can't beat NT's 1 CPU. It is either Apache's handling of the dynamic data generated by the CGI, NT's version of perl is simply faster than ours, Linux's scheduler hurting the perl process needed to delier dynamic data, or somewhere, the network load balancing is not working and we are maxing out on bandwidth or CPU.
Now I'd say it's the CGI, but there was another CGI test which didn't suffer like this, although it didn't generate the same dynamic data from what I can tell.
These numbers also show that NT's SMP is about as bad as ours is. Is this a problem with Intel's SMP itself or what?
Jordan
--
Jordan Mendelson : http://jordy.wserv.com Web Services, Inc. : http://www.wserv.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |