I do wonder what kind of numbers an AMD Phenom II X6 would give here.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Multi-Core, Multi-OS Scaling Performance
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by mirv View PostI do wonder what kind of numbers an AMD Phenom II X6 would give here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostI did some testing a while back with that on my 1090T. Results looked a little weird given the clock speeds for up to three cores in use wound up being @ 3.6 Ghz and 4+ cores in use wound up being @ 3.2 Ghz.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by mtippett View PostThe chip keeps within it's TDP by up-clocking when only a limited number of cores is active.
I am not sure how smart Linux is at keeping that in mind when scheduling. However, it does mean that if you need pure grunt for a while, it makes sense to offline the other cores. (You can do this via a sysfs entry.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ChrisXY View PostWhen I saw the title I immediately knew there would be no information about what CPU scheduler is used in these benchmarks. I just have to assume it is CFQ in all Linuxes? Why don't you benchmark other schedulers too?
Originally posted by ChrisXY View PostIn other benchmarks it was shown that the filesystem actually can have a rather big impact on compiling. Why not also try it within a ramdisk (maybe with some filesystem formatted all benchmarked operating systems support)?
it would be VERY interesting to repeat the bechmarks either with a ramdisk or with ssd
Comment
-
Originally posted by adrian_sev View Postso true .. without info about schedulers the benchmarks have a lot less meaningful info
If the schedulers were given a head-to-head, then people would say "well, the distribution or compiler choices make the benchmarks pointless". Of course we all know what happens when compilers are compared...
Comment
-
Originally posted by mtippett View PostI don't see people asking for the scheduler information for PC-BSD or OpenIndiana. The scheduler decisions made by Ubuntu and Red Hat (CentOS, Fedora) are no different than the scheduler decisions made for other OSes. Only those who regularly hack and play with schedulers really care. I have never heard anyone say distro-X with CFQ's scalability sucks. It's invariable either the scheduler as the primary point of interest or the distribution.
If the schedulers were given a head-to-head, then people would say "well, the distribution or compiler choices make the benchmarks pointless". Of course we all know what happens when compilers are compared...
Comment
Comment