This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
ulevs4bsd [2013/06/24 10:07] – Add E3-1230v2 results. peterjeremy | ulevs4bsd [2013/06/29 06:36] – Insert corrected graphs peterjeremy | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
{{cpu_1.png|V890 CPU Time with 1KiB Working Set}} | {{cpu_1.png|V890 CPU Time with 1KiB Working Set}} | ||
- | {{xcpu_1.png|Xeon CPU Time with 1KiB Working Set}} | ||
shows that ULE is very slightly more efficient than 4BSD and (pleasingly) that the amount of CPU time taken to perform a task is independent of the number of active processes for either scheduler. | shows that ULE is very slightly more efficient than 4BSD and (pleasingly) that the amount of CPU time taken to perform a task is independent of the number of active processes for either scheduler. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{xcpu_1.png|Xeon CPU Time with 1KiB Working Set}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | shows | ||
{{wall_1.png|V890 Elapsed Time with 1KiB Working Set}} | {{wall_1.png|V890 Elapsed Time with 1KiB Working Set}} | ||
Line 38: | Line 41: | ||
{{eff_1.png|V890 Scheduler efficiency with 1KiB Working set}} | {{eff_1.png|V890 Scheduler efficiency with 1KiB Working set}} | ||
- | {{xeff_1.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiency with 1KiB Working set}} | + | {{yeff_1.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiency with 1KiB Working set}} |
This graph shows scheduler efficiency as a ratio of wallclock time to CPU time. | This graph shows scheduler efficiency as a ratio of wallclock time to CPU time. | ||
Line 56: | Line 59: | ||
Between 17 and about 40 proceses, ULE uses significantly less CPU than ULE. | Between 17 and about 40 proceses, ULE uses significantly less CPU than ULE. | ||
Beyond about 48 processes, 4BSD again takes the lead. | Beyond about 48 processes, 4BSD again takes the lead. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
{{wall_4.png|V890 Elapsed Time with 4MiB Working Set}} | {{wall_4.png|V890 Elapsed Time with 4MiB Working Set}} | ||
Line 64: | Line 69: | ||
{{eff_4.png|V890 Scheduler efficiency with 4MiB Working set}} | {{eff_4.png|V890 Scheduler efficiency with 4MiB Working set}} | ||
- | {{xeff_4.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiency with 4MiB Working set}} | + | {{yeff_4.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiency with 4MiB Working set}} |
The 4BSD scheduler maintains a fairly constant effeciency, with only a slight bump between 4 and 12 processes. | The 4BSD scheduler maintains a fairly constant effeciency, with only a slight bump between 4 and 12 processes. | ||
Line 86: | Line 91: | ||
{{eff_32.png|V890 Scheduler efficiency with 32MiB Working set}} | {{eff_32.png|V890 Scheduler efficiency with 32MiB Working set}} | ||
- | {{xeff_32.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiency with 32MiB Working set}} | + | {{yeff_32.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiency with 32MiB Working set}} |
The 4BSD scheduler maintains a fairly constant effeciency, with a slight bump between about 16 and 32 processes. | The 4BSD scheduler maintains a fairly constant effeciency, with a slight bump between about 16 and 32 processes. | ||
Line 105: | Line 110: | ||
{{xwall.png|Xeon Elapsed Times}} | {{xwall.png|Xeon Elapsed Times}} | ||
- | {{xeff.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiencies}} | + | {{yeff.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiencies}}l0 |