[BENCHMARK] AIM9 results. 2.4.19 vs 2.5.58 vs 2.5.63

From: Paolo Ciarrocchi (ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org)
Date: Thu Feb 27 2003 - 16:39:54 EST

Next message: Art Haas: "[PATCH] C99 initializers for alpha/thread-info.h"
Previous message: latten@austin.ibm.com: "PATCH: IPSec not using padding when Null Encryption"
Next in thread: Martin J. Bligh: "Re: [BENCHMARK] AIM9 results. 2.4.19 vs 2.5.58 vs 2.5.63"
Reply: Martin J. Bligh: "Re: [BENCHMARK] AIM9 results. 2.4.19 vs 2.5.58 vs 2.5.63"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi all,
the subject says everything.
I don't post the results that don's show intersting number.

2.4.19
2.5.58
2.5.63

creat-clo 10040 19.4223 19422.31 File Creations and Closes/second
creat-clo 10020 79.7405 79740.52 File Creations and Closes/second
creat-clo 10010 84.3157 84315.68 File Creations and Closes/second
^^^^^ Amazing improvement here

page_test 10000 123.9 210630.00 System Allocations & Pages/second
page_test 10000 102.8 174760.00 System Allocations & Pages/second
page_test 10010 101.898 173226.77 System Allocations & Pages/second
^^^^^Here we are still slowe then 2.4.19

brk_test 10010 48.951 832167.83 System Memory Allocations/second
brk_test 10000 43.7 742900.00 System Memory Allocations/second
brk_test 10020 41.018 697305.39 System Memory Allocations/second
^^^^Slower then .58 and a lot slower then 2.4.19

signal_test 10000 166.1 166100.00 Signal Traps/second
signal_test 10010 156.843 156843.16 Signal Traps/second
signal_test 10000 148.3 148300.00 Signal Traps/second
^^^^Slower then .58 and a lot slower then 2.4.19

exec_test 10000 13.8 69.00 Program Loads/second
exec_test 10030 12.8614 64.31 Program Loads/second
exec_test 10020 12.7745 63.87 Program Loads/second
^^^^ Slower then 2.4.19

fork_test 10000 44.8 4480.00 Task Creations/second
fork_test 10020 24.8503 2485.03 Task Creations/second
fork_test 10000 23.2 2320.00 Task Creations/second
^^^^^ A lot slower then 2.4.19

link_test 10000 155.3 9783.90 Link/Unlink Pairs/second
link_test 10000 135 8505.00 Link/Unlink Pairs/second
link_test 10010 160.739 10126.57 Link/Unlink Pairs/second
^^^^Big improvement here

disk_rw 10060 5.666 29009.94 Random Disk Writes (K)/second
disk_rw 10110 6.42928 32917.90 Random Disk Writes (K)/second
disk_rw 10010 6.39361 32735.26 Random Disk Writes (K)/second
^^^^^Fatser then 2.4.19

sync_disk_rw 16020 0.062422 159.80 Sync Random Disk Writes (K)/second
sync_disk_rw 14600 0.0684932 175.34 Sync Random Disk Writes (K)/second
sync_disk_rw 14410 0.0693963 177.65 Sync Random Disk Writes (K)/second
^^^^ Faster then 2.4.19

array_rtns 10010 13.6863 273.73 Linear Systems Solved/second
array_rtns 10030 13.0608 261.22 Linear Systems Solved/second
array_rtns 10020 11.2774 225.55 Linear Systems Solved/second
^^^^2.5.63 is slower then .58 and slower then 2.4.19

mem_rtns_1 10000 27.7 831000.00 Dynamic Memory Operations/second
mem_rtns_1 10000 24.1 723000.00 Dynamic Memory Operations/second
mem_rtns_1 10020 22.7545 682634.73 Dynamic Memory Operations/second
^^^^^Slow, slow, slow...

misc_rtns_1 10000 782.2 7822.00 Auxiliary Loops/second
misc_rtns_1 10000 706 7060.00 Auxiliary Loops/second
misc_rtns_1 10000 686.9 6869.00 Auxiliary Loops/second
^^^^ Slow too...

dir_rtns_1 10000 85.8 858000.00 Directory Operations/second
dir_rtns_1 10010 101.598 1015984.02 Directory Operations/second
dir_rtns_1 10010 101.998 1019980.02 Directory Operations/second
^^^^ Fast, really fast

shared_memory 10000 2227.4 222740.00 Shared Memory Operations/second
shared_memory 10000 1973.1 197310.00 Shared Memory Operations/second
shared_memory 10000 1955.2 195520.00 Shared Memory Operations/second
^^^^Slow, slow, slow...

tcp_test 10000 661.7 59553.00 TCP/IP Messages/second
tcp_test 10000 532.7 47943.00 TCP/IP Messages/second
tcp_test 10000 539.3 48537.00 TCP/IP Messages/second
^^^^Debug code, I guess.

udp_test 10000 1182.7 118270.00 UDP/IP DataGrams/second
udp_test 10000 931.5 93150.00 UDP/IP DataGrams/second
udp_test 10000 909.3 90930.00 UDP/IP DataGrams/second
^^^^Debug code, I guess.

fifo_test 10000 1207 120700.00 FIFO Messages/second
fifo_test 10000 997.2 99720.00 FIFO Messages/second
fifo_test 10000 1117.3 111730.00 FIFO Messages/second
^^^^^Faster then 2.5.58 but slower then 2.4.19

stream_pipe 10000 2418.6 241860.00 Stream Pipe Messages/second
stream_pipe 10000 2190 219000.00 Stream Pipe Messages/second
stream_pipe 10000 2176.7 217670.00 Stream Pipe Messages/second
^^^^Still slower then 2.4.19

dgram_pipe 10000 2357.8 235780.00 DataGram Pipe Messages/second
dgram_pipe 10000 2040 204000.00 DataGram Pipe Messages/second
dgram_pipe 10000 1978 197800.00 DataGram Pipe Messages/second
^^^^Debug code, I guess.

pipe_cpy 10000 3918 391800.00 Pipe Messages/second
pipe_cpy 10000 2949.9 294990.00 Pipe Messages/second
pipe_cpy 10000 3123.7 312370.00 Pipe Messages/second
^^^^^Faster then 2.5.58 but slower then 2.4.19

Hope it helps.

Ciao,
Paolo

-- ______________________________________________ http://www.linuxmail.org/ Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr

Powered by Outblaze - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Art Haas: "[PATCH] C99 initializers for alpha/thread-info.h"
Previous message: latten@austin.ibm.com: "PATCH: IPSec not using padding when Null Encryption"
Next in thread: Martin J. Bligh: "Re: [BENCHMARK] AIM9 results. 2.4.19 vs 2.5.58 vs 2.5.63"
Reply: Martin J. Bligh: "Re: [BENCHMARK] AIM9 results. 2.4.19 vs 2.5.58 vs 2.5.63"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 28 2003 - 22:00:45 EST