I don't recall, the second time I sent it, it said plain text... I don't
know what it was.
That's an interesting idea regarding jbb, I'll inquire with more
veteraned JBB guys and see what their opinion is. I do know though,
that JBB does strives to not be too cacheable.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Theurer [mailto:habanero@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 10:12 AM
To: Wolinsky, David
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Benchmarking Xen (results and questions)
This is much better. I think my email client just didn't format your
first (html?) message. For JBB, I suspect the degrade is mostly cache
thrashing, and the increased timeslice = better cache warmth. Perhaps
there a lot of overhead in the domain context switch as well. What is
the cpu cache size?
I will soon be doing tests like these on a dozen or so benchmarks, so
hopefully we can compare results. Have you looked at using xenoprofile
while running your tests?
As for the WebBench numbers, do you have cpu utilization stats for Host
and each of the domains? Is it possible the Host and 1 VM are not using
much cpu at all, and adding domains/clients just increases cpu util &
TPS?
-Andrew
David_Wolinsky@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>That's funny, They were sent out formatted nicely... Tests were run
>multiple times for consistency purposes... Using BEA Jrockit 1.5.
>
> 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
>
> Period Slice BOPs
>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
>
>Hope it works this time. If not, I'll submit as an attachment.
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Theurer [mailto:habanero@xxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 8:43 PM
>To: Wolinsky, David
>Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Benchmarking Xen (results and questions)
>
>David_Wolinsky@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>Did you run each JBB test config several times to ensure consistent
>results? What JVM is this?
>
>Would it be possible to format these more appropriately for email? I am
>having a little trouble reading this :)
>
>Thanks,
>
>-Andrew
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home