Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 2.6.32 Kernel Benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux 2.6.32 Kernel Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Linux 2.6.32 Kernel Benchmarks

    With the Linux 2.6.32 kernel being released in a few days, we found it time to benchmark this newest kernel release that brings new drivers, kernel mode-setting improvements, virtualization enhancements, and more.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14403

  • #2
    I'm starting to think that those big boys should really start testing and profiling their crap. I wonder how 2.6.24 would compare. Good article.

    Comment


    • #3
      This x264 boost is rather interesting, but this postmark and iozone regressions are due to the ext4 "problem"?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by hax0r View Post
        I'm starting to think that those big boys should really start testing and profiling their crap. I wonder how 2.6.24 would compare. Good article.
        I asbolutely quote here.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Apopas View Post
          This x264 boost is rather interesting, but this postmark and iozone regressions are due to the ext4 "problem"?
          No idea what's wrong with ext4, but Con Kolivas needs three cheers for getting them to finally fix their damn scheduler.

          Comment


          • #6
            Read: http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14285 where PTS shows the specific commit that causes the performance drop.
            Michael Larabel
            http://www.michaellarabel.com/

            Comment


            • #7
              I was really psyched about Ext4 when it first came out, but perhaps I should just stick with good old Ext3 for another year...

              Comment


              • #8
                Meh, just get an ups and mount with nobarrier.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ant P. View Post
                  No idea what's wrong with ext4, but Con Kolivas needs three cheers for getting them to finally fix their damn scheduler.
                  Well, CK and Dark Shikari. http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=185

                  @Phoronix team:
                  Originally posted by Article
                  ...the Linux 2.6.32 kernel had the lowest overall CPU usage when using X-Video with MPlayer.
                  Not lowest. Either 'worst', or 'highest'.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ant P. View Post
                    No idea what's wrong with ext4, but Con Kolivas needs three cheers for getting them to finally fix their damn scheduler.
                    Apache benchmark is meaningless. Not sure about others, but it's probably because of change in Ext4 like Michael said. Con's scheduler is slower in Apache. Btw. notice performance in not disk related benchmars is as it should be.
                    Last edited by kraftman; 11-28-2009, 05:18 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by hax0r View Post
                      I'm starting to think that those big boys should really start testing and profiling their crap. I wonder how 2.6.24 would compare. Good article.
                      They actually do, but they also do proper benchmarks. I wonder if generic kernels were tested here and still ext4 vs different mount options (or mentioned commit which changed behavior) and maybe even different settings like NO_NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS which is default in Karmic and it affects benchmarks numbers. Btw, what are you talking about if it was planned change?

                      And like Michael pointed:

                      The very significant drop in PostgreSQL's performance in the Linux 2.6.32 kernel with default options can be attributed to this lone Git commit that is for a fix to address cache flushing in ext4_sync_file for the EXT4 file-system. This commit improves data integrity in the event of a power loss or other problem, but carries a high disk performance penalty.
                      Last edited by kraftman; 11-28-2009, 05:17 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It should be noted than on 2.6.32, both the CPU and the I/O schedulers have been tuned for desktop usage (i.e, low latency), which means a drop in throughput in many cases. But desktop users should "feel" things faster, more responsive.

                        So nothing to worry about here, on the contrary, it just proves that the kernel devs did a bold movement in favour of desktop users.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ranguvar View Post
                          Well, CK and Dark Shikari. http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=185

                          @Phoronix team:

                          Not lowest. Either 'worst', or 'highest'.
                          Agreed. I looked at the graph, then the comments, and then back at the graph a few times... The average CPU utilization is higher almost across the board, but the PEAK utilization was lower for 2.6.32.

                          So I guess Michael's technically right, but the text analysis doesn't lead one to look at the average numbers, both of which are important in video playback.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Luis View Post
                            It should be noted than on 2.6.32, both the CPU and the I/O schedulers have been tuned for desktop usage (i.e, low latency), which means a drop in throughput in many cases. But desktop users should "feel" things faster, more responsive.
                            Yes, but I/O scheduler will be probably set for throughput for final 2.6.32. Afaik it's set for low latency in -rc and some benchmarks suffer from this. It should be optimized and set default for 2.6.33.

                            So nothing to worry about here, on the contrary, it just proves that the kernel devs did a bold movement in favour of desktop users.
                            Yes, if someone wants to have good results in some benchmarks just mount file system using different mode or options.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I wonder if this boost is just for x264 or if we are gonna see sweet results with lame and oggenc as well

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X