Sorry this must've gotten clipped out
Xen Version SPECjbb Change set 5814
WebBench Change set 5818
(both unstable) and yes SEDF scheduling and currently we only have
results in 32-bit mode.
SPECjbb only reacts by a marginal amount by decreasing ram... Ie, the
difference between at 256MB machine and a 1500MB is less than 5%. One
way this test could be tested further is by increasing the thread counts
on each of VMs so that we can compare 8 SPECjbb processes on 8 VMs to 8
SPECjbb threads on 1 VM (etc...).
I had initially tried BVT; however, at that time it would crash the
system if I tried to change any of the settings, I do not know if this
is currently the issue.
That's a very interesting idea regarding the Hyperthreading, it hadn't
occurred to me.
Also, if you have time, could you elaborate on my WebBench results?
Thanks,
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Pratt [mailto:m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 6:48 PM
To: Wolinsky, David; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ian.pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Benchmarking Xen (results and questions)
David,
Which xen version is this? I'm guessing unstable.
Is this with sedf or bvt? I'm guessing sedf since you're playing around
with periods.
It would be interesting to retry a couple of datapoints with sched=bvt
on the xen command line.
Also, I'd definitely recommend enabling HyperThreading and dedicating
one of the logical CPUs to dom0.
Also, are you sure the drop-off in performance isn't just caused because
of the reduced memory size when you have more VMs? It's probably better
to do such experiments with the same memory size throughout.
Best,
Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> David_Wolinsky@xxxxxxxx
> Sent: 04 August 2005 00:21
> To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Xen-devel] Benchmarking Xen (results and questions)
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here are some benchmarks that I've done using Xen.
>
> However, before I get started, let me explain some of configuration
> details...
>
> Xen Version SPECjbb
> WebBench
> Linux Distribution Debian 3.1
> HT disabled
> Linux Kernel 2.6.12.2
> Host Patch CK3s
>
>
> Here are the initial benchmarks
>
> SPECJBB WebBench
> 1 Thread 1 Client 2 Clients 4
> Clients 8 Clients
> BOPS TPS TPS TPS TPS
> Host 32403.5 213.45 416.86 814.62 1523.78
> 1 VM 32057 205.4 380.91 569.24 733.8
> 2 VM 24909.25 NA 399.29 695.1 896.04
> 4 VM 17815.75 NA NA 742.78 950.63
> 8 VM 10216.25 NA NA NA 1002.81
>
>
> (and some more notes.... BOPS - business operations per second, TPS -
> transactions per second...
> SPECjbb tests CPU and Memory
> WebBench (the way we configured it) tests Network I/O and Disk I/O
>
> Values = AVG * VM count
> Domain configurations
> 1 VM - 1660 MB - SPECJBB 1500MB
> 2 VM - 1280 MB - SPECJBB - 1024MB
> 4 VM - 640 MB - SPECJBB - 512 MB
> 8 VM - 320 MB - SPECJBB - 256 MB
>
> Seeing how the SPECjbb numbers declined so bizarrely, I did some
> scheduling tests and found this out...
>
> Test1: Examine Xen's scheduling to determine if context
> switching is causing the overhead
> Period Slice BOPs
> Modified 8 VM 1 ms 125 us 6858
> 8 VM 10 ms 1.25 ms 14287
> 8 VM 100 ms 12.5 ms 18912
> 8 VM 1 Sec .125 Sec 20695
> 8 VM 2 Sec .25 Sec 21072
> 8 VM 10 Sec 1.25 Sec 21797
> 8 VM 100 Sec 12.5 Sec 11402
>
> I later learned that there was a period limit of 4 seconds, thus
> invalidating 10 and 100 seconds. However, this graph suggests that
> Xen needs some load and scheduling balancing done.
>
> I also did a memory test to determine if that could be the issue... I
> made a custom stream to run for a 2 minute period...
> and got these numbers
>
> Copy Scale Add Triad
> Host 3266.4 3215.47 3012.28 3021.79
> Modified 1 VM 3262.34 3220.34 3016.13 3025.28
>
>
> So we can see memory is not the issue...
>
> Now onto WebBench - After comparing the WebBench to the SPECjbb
> results, we get something interesting... NUMBERS increase as we
> increase the virtual machien count... So I would really like some idea
> on why this is. My understanding is this... When using the shared
> memory network drivers, there must be a local buffer, and when the
> buffer fills up, it puts the remaining into a global buffer, and when
> that fills up it puts it into a disk buffer? (These are all
> assumptions please correct me...) If that is the case is there an
> easy way to increase the local buffer to attempt to get better
> numbers? I also am looking into doing some tests that deal with
> multiple small transactions and 1 large transactions... I ran these
> all against a physical and image backed disk.
> Please any suggestions.
>
> (Note... I was running this on a 1 gigabit switch with only webbench
> running)...
>
> If there are any questions, I would be glad to respond.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home