Re: [9fans] 9bench: lmbench for Plan 9
- From: quanstro@xxxxxxxxxxxx (erik quanstrom)
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:13:26 GMT
As for the utility of the benchmarks, come on. I know there are people
on this list who write kernel code (hmm, I seem to recall somebody
on here who does a lot of work on networking drivers...) and they
may find it useful to get these kinds of measurements to see if
changes have improved performance. Besides, there's nothing to stop you
from running the benchmarks on Linux and Plan 9 and comparing (for
yourself) the difference in performance--you just can't try for
e-cred by posting your results on comp.os.linux (hint: the
comparisons don't come out very favorably for Plan 9 anyway).
i tend to use very simple timing runs in my testing. i use dd for AoE
and disk drivers and a small program named zerohose for (other)
network protcols. time(1) seems good enough for timing given an
appropriate amount of i/o.
the reason for the simple timing tests is because good hardware is
hard to get wrong but marginal hardware (bad design, undersized
buffers, unsufficient pcie lanes) is typically very sensitve to cache
pecularities. even with simple tests some hardware can have >20%
variance between runs. it's very hard to reason about this sort of
thing. i'd hate to have to also have to understand what the benchmark
is doing for^wto me, too.
oh, plan 9 can push packets faster on the nics i've tested than linux,
but for some reason, plan 9 tcp performance hasn't been very good,
especially on 10gbe hardware. il and aoe fair much better.
- erik
.
- References:
- Re: [9fans] 9bench: lmbench for Plan 9
- From: john
- Re: [9fans] 9bench: lmbench for Plan 9
- Prev by Date: Re: [9fans] 9bench: lmbench for Plan 9
- Next by Date: Re: [9fans] Drawterm + QEMU
- Previous by thread: Re: [9fans] 9bench: lmbench for Plan 9
- Next by thread: [9fans] System call mania
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|