Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: A Detailed Guide To Phoronix Test Suite 2.0

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,527

    Default A Detailed Guide To Phoronix Test Suite 2.0

    Phoronix: A Detailed Guide To Phoronix Test Suite 2.0

    In less than two weeks we will be officially releasing Phoronix Test Suite 2.0 "Sandtorg" and this by far is the biggest upgrade ever to our flagship testing and benchmarking software. While the Phoronix Test Suite is most often associated with Linux, this open-source software is also compatible with Mac OS X, OpenSolaris, and BSD operating systems too, all of which offer new improvements with Phoronix Test Suite 2.0. In this article we have detailed some of the major highlights of Phoronix Test Suite 2.0 and how we seek to drive innovation into PC benchmarking and performance profiling.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14063

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Is it possible to make the Phoronix Test Suite work on Windows as well? It would be kinda cool if performance could be compared between Windows and Linux with the test suite.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King InuYasha View Post
    Is it possible to make the Phoronix Test Suite work on Windows as well? It would be kinda cool if performance could be compared between Windows and Linux with the test suite.
    I could port pts-core / Phodevi to run on Windows 7... Plus some of the test profiles. I have thought about it, it would be fun. However, I have no intentions of doing so until any company or organization wants to finance that work... Or at a minimum, to at least send out a couple Windows PCs. I have no Windows installations on hand.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I could port pts-core / Phodevi to run on Windows 7... Plus some of the test profiles. I have thought about it, it would be fun. However, I have no intentions of doing so until any company or organization wants to finance that work... Or at a minimum, to at least send out a couple Windows PCs. I have no Windows installations on hand.
    I would be willing to provide access to Windows machines, I can't send you out Windows installs, but if you wish, I can provide access to Windows versions from 2000 all the way up to 7.

    All you need to do is ask and I will try to provide to the best of my abilities.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King InuYasha View Post
    I would be willing to provide access to Windows machines, I can't send you out Windows installs, but if you wish, I can provide access to Windows versions from 2000 all the way up to 7.

    All you need to do is ask and I will try to provide to the best of my abilities.
    Thanks, but I will just wait for a company to back it. Much easier having the systems running locally so I can swap out hardware, change the drivers, etc for verifying the software/hardware support is working.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Thanks, but I will just wait for a company to back it. Much easier having the systems running locally so I can swap out hardware, change the drivers, etc for verifying the software/hardware support is working.
    Yes, please don't waste time on Windows, was so 1990s. :P

    Not to mention Windows has enough benchmarking programs as it is...you know...the whole reason behind PTS coming to be, lack of benchmarking on Linux/BSD/etc. As far as *open source* Windows benchmarking, I dunno, but who wants to help open source on a closed source platform? Just silly.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Please make sure the PTS Live Linux ends up with an alternate BIG SMP variant kernel as well so we can run tests on large servers. A non-Desktop oriented test suite set would also be very welcome.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Is there any way to determine what the command-line equivalent is for each of the tests in the GUI implementation of PTS 2.0 ? I'd really like to know what the setting is for the record size in the IOzone test!

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fxfuji View Post
    Is there any way to determine what the command-line equivalent is for each of the tests in the GUI implementation of PTS 2.0 ? I'd really like to know what the setting is for the record size in the IOzone test!
    It should ask you regardless of whether you are using GUI or CLI.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    It should ask you regardless of whether you are using GUI or CLI.
    Both ask for the size, which is the size of the file being tested. I was asking about the 'record size' parameter.

    However, your tip about the CLI did lead me to the answer. The command line invoked by PTS to iozone showed a record size of 1K.

    That value seems rather low to me... do Linux file systems typically transfer files in 1 K chunks? That seems like it would be incredibly inefficient for large files.

    I know that Windoze is altogether different, but for it, '64 K is the typical record size that Windows uses when applications try to transfer blocks of data that are bigger than 64 K' according to Don Capps of iozone:

    http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/24310/77/


    The one other iozone test I remember finding used a record size of 64 K, I believe... I'll try to dig up the link.

    *****

    Edit: Found the test I remembered, and another one.

    The one I was thinking of was from IBM, and they tested a virtual Linux machine of 192 MB with an ext2 filesystem with an 800 MB test file size. The record size they used for the test was 64 KB:

    http://www.vm.ibm.com/perf/reports/zvm/html/iozone.html


    The other one was a preliminary test of the local disk that was going to be used in a Linux cluster. The computer memory was 1 GB, the test file size was 2 GB, and a variety of filesystems were tested. They swept the record size from 64 KB to 16384 KB, in 2x steps (i.e. they doubled the record size for the subsequent test step):

    http://marc.info/?l=redhat-linux-clu...11337395629359


    It seems that the implementation of the iozone test in PTS 2.0 could benefit from being tweaked a little, using a larger record size, or even permitting the user/tester to choose the value. A larger value would probably speed up the test somewhat -- my tests using a 4 KB record size for 4 GB and 8 GB file sizes were unbearably slow, whereas using a 1 MB record size was tolerably slow. :P

    Unfortunately, I still don't know.... what is the right record size I should use for my test?
    Last edited by fxfuji; 08-15-2009 at 03:19 PM.

Posting Permissions

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