The Power Efficiency Between Ubuntu 19.04, Clear Linux & openSUSE Tumbleweed With CompuLab's Airtop 3

[utrrrongeeb]

Ah, ok – I'd missed the significance of your request for representing a typical server.

same suite duration

This constraint you usually won't get with a passively cooled system. These results show several tests which required many more repetitions to significantly converge (some as many as 40) on different distros. I suppose you could assume this was negligible, attempt to exclude the extras, or seek them out as an indication of thermal throttling (or obtrusive default tasks/daemons). I don't think the run-individual results and logs are retrievable from openbenchmarking.org.

[Michael]

Ah, ok – I'd missed the significance of your request for representing a typical server.

This constraint you usually won't get with a passively cooled system. These results show several tests which required many more repetitions to significantly converge (some as many as 40) on different distros. I suppose you could assume this was negligible, attempt to exclude the extras, or seek them out as an indication of thermal throttling (or obtrusive default tasks/daemons). I don't think the run-individual results and logs are retrievable from openbenchmarking.org.

Individually run results are always maintained: as part of the raw XML data. If going to OpenBenchmarking.org there are options for plotting all the individiaul run data as well, etc. There is/was tooltips for showing the individual data too if mousing over the relevant parts of the graphs, but sadly due to modern web browsers handling of SVG, that no longer is working AFAIK.

[utrrrongeeb]

Thanks! I saw the XML button, but since it was between CSV and PDF, I lazily didn't test it and assumed it was just another format of the same accumulated results…

If going to OpenBenchmarking.org there are options for plotting all the individiaul run data as well, etc.

I'm not seeing an obvious way to do this.

More importantly, is the /prospect/ thing a known bug or feature?

[utrrrongeeb]

linuxgeex Turns out if you set the No Box Plots checkbox, you get the full plot. The CPU temperature plot is just above it. Comparing them, Tumbleweed looks pretty throttled…

I've extracted the samples from the XML, but haven't yet found the system_monitor sys.power polling interval with which to accumulate them.

[utrrrongeeb]

Glancing at system_monitor.php suggests a default delay of two seconds between readings. If all samples are indeed 2s apart, throughout the benchmarking the energy used by Clear, Ubuntu, and Tumbleweed, respectively, was 291, 231, and 603 kJ (rounded, and still not corrected for test repetitions).

[Michael]

Glancing at system_monitor.php suggests a default delay of two seconds between readings. If all samples are indeed 2s apart, throughout the benchmarking the energy used by Clear, Ubuntu, and Tumbleweed, respectively, was 291, 231, and 603 kJ (rounded, and still not corrected for test repetitions).

It should be a 1 second interval - https://github.com/phoronix-test-sui...onitor.php#L49

[utrrrongeeb]

Thanks, I'd been looking at the local file for PTS version 8.0. (Assuming that's consistent, my last results are twice what they should be.)

Is the openbenchmarking.org /prospect/ versus /result/ path a known bug?

[linuxgeex]

Ah, ok – I'd missed the significance of your request for representing a typical server.

This constraint you usually won't get with a passively cooled system. These results show several tests which required many more repetitions to significantly converge (some as many as 40) on different distros. I suppose you could assume this was negligible, attempt to exclude the extras, or seek them out as an indication of thermal throttling (or obtrusive default tasks/daemons). I don't think the run-individual results and logs are retrievable from openbenchmarking.org.

All very true. The duration being similar is based on the assumption that the test suite runs enough times for the durations to "settle down" to a reasonable noise floor when summed for the entire suite. I trust that to be the case. The performance geomean results were close, so I don't repent suggesting that the suite durations could be called equally "close". ;-)

The median core temperature deltas to ambient however were another story.

Assuming ambient temp of 22C, Ubuntu's median core temp was +42C, while SuSE's was +60C. If the fan speed was static then the dissipation ratio of SuSE to Ubuntu would be 60²/42² = 2.04 = +104% more core heat dissipation for the SuSE run. Not knowing whether the fan speed is static, it's fair to assume that the fans were spinning slower for Ubuntu at 18C cooler, and therefore the dissipation delta was lower than +104%. How much, we don't know. That's the ceiling. But I think it's also fair to assume that SuSE lost some TB2 opportunities running with a median core temp above 80C.

[linuxgeex]

linuxgeex Turns out if you set the No Box Plots checkbox, you get the full plot. The CPU temperature plot is just above it. Comparing them, Tumbleweed looks pretty throttled…

I've extracted the samples from the XML, but haven't yet found the system_monitor sys.power polling interval with which to accumulate them.

Cool. I'm glad you have the energy to explore it lol. I noticed the median temp delta and I've had poor experiences over the last 18 years with SuSE's power management so my opinion was a hasty armchair one based on that one observation... if you can tell the story better than me, all I can say is <simpsons_reference>excellent</simpsons_reference>. ;-)