Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Benchmarking The Linux 2.6.24 Through 2.6.29 Kernels

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,591

    Default Benchmarking The Linux 2.6.24 Through 2.6.29 Kernels

    Phoronix: Benchmarking The Linux 2.6.24 Through 2.6.29 Kernels

    With the release yesterday of the Linux 2.6.29 kernel, we have set out to explore how the desktop performance has evolved over the past six major kernel releases. On a few occasions in the past we have provided kernel benchmarks (at one point even benchmarking 12 kernels), but this time around we have included nearly two dozen benchmarks using the Phoronix Test Suite. How has the Linux performance evolved since the release of the Linux 2.6.24 kernel back in early 2008? Well, simply put, the Linux 2.6.29 kernel in a few areas does pack some serious performance boosts.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13622

  2. #2

    Default

    love the little arrows, much easier to skim through now.

    but i'd still like to see error bars.

    if you do multiple runs with the same kernel there will be some variation. if there is a 1% run to run variation, then a 0.1% kernel to kernel variation is insignificant.

    also would be nice to see boot, and program launch times.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Nice article, very interesting. There's just one typo:
    For those unfamiliar with GraphicsMagick, this open-source package was originally derived from GraphicsMagick, but since then it has adopted an incredible number of changes. In the most recent release of GraphicsMagick, it now uses OpenMP to provide multi-threaded image processing.
    I guess you missed an "ImageMagick" in there
    Great to see those kernel improvements with graphical operations. I didn't think the kernel had impact with that..

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,092

    Default

    Yes, I wonder what caused that, it's very surprising.

    Maybe a big lock got broken up in the kernel, and ImageMagick is able to utilize a 2nd core now that was previously just always waiting on syscalls from the 1st one?

    That doesn't really seem right.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10

    Default

    When you see doubling of performance, it would be nice to see some analysis of why those tests improved so much.

    For IO bound tests (like SQLite) was there less IO? Or did IO complete faster?

    For CPU bound tests (like OpenSSL & GraphicsMachine) was CPU utilization higher?

    Seeing improvements of 100% or more is quite unexpected indeed. There either was a significant improvement in the kernel, or a bug in the benchmark routines.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,613

    Default

    "On a clean Ubuntu 8.10 (x86_64) system we had installed the Linux 2.6.24, Linux 2.6.25, Linux 2.6.26, Linux 2.6.27, Linux 2.6.28, and Linux 2.6.29 kernels"

    I can not verify those results with my system. Of course I do not use Ubuntu 8.10 but something Debian 5.0 based and those results are completely different. I only tested the OpenSSL benchmark, with 2.6.29 and running fglrx 9.2 i got 87.87 and with 2.6.28 i got 87.97, that's a very minor diff. Both tests with live mode from usb storage with E8400 cpu at stock speeds, running in performance mode of speedstep.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    206

    Default

    > For CPU bound tests (like OpenSSL & GraphicsMachine) was CPU
    > utilization higher?

    Ok, I can understand the IO bound tests, maybe SQLLite hit a corner case somewhere triggering very ugly behaviour.

    What I don't understand are the CPU test. Are those really the same binaries? Could it be that those binaries have been compiled with OpenMP support, but <=2.6.28 were single-core kernels?

    - Clemens

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Linuxhippy View Post
    What I don't understand are the CPU test. Are those really the same binaries?
    Yep, they are the same exact binaries. No tests were reinstalled or modified between kernels.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,613

    Default

    But why do i see basially no diff between 2.6.28 + 2.6.29? I always have got high results with OpenSSL, but you have got lots of low results, something weird must be going on there.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    But why do i see basially no diff between 2.6.28 + 2.6.29? I always have got high results with OpenSSL, but you have got lots of low results, something weird must be going on there.
    I don't know, yet. Still running some other tests to see on what hardware the speed differences can be found on.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •