Jason Evans wrote: > > On Dec 28, 2005, at 8:52 PM, David Xu wrote: > >> Jason Evans wrote: >> >>> So, how about it? Is jemalloc ready to go in now? >>> Thanks, >>> Jason >> >> >> I have tested super-smack with your patch on my Pentium-D machine: >> CPU : P4 dual-core 2.8Ghz >> Memory: 1G bytes >> I am using libthr. >> >> phkmalloc can reach about 21000 query-per-s. >> jemalloc can only reach about 15000 query-per-s, >> about 28% performance is dropped. > > > That is a much different result than Kris Kennaway got on a dual-dual > Opteron system, as well as my results on a 3.2 GHz P4. Can you please > provide details on what version of the jemalloc patch you used, which > MALLOC_OPTIONS flags you used, what parameters you specified to > super-smack, etc.? > > A Pentium-D should behave similarly to two single-core CPUs, right? > > Thanks, > Jason > > > I am using patch file jemalloc_20051222c.diff. I don't use MALLOC_OPTIONS and don't create link malloc.conf in /etc. I have tested super-smack with following command: %super-smack ./select-key.smack 10 5000 Query Barrel Report for client smacker1 connect: max=4ms min=1ms avg= 2ms from 10 clients Query_type num_queries max_time min_time q_per_s select_index 100000 0 0 15895.76 %super-smack ./select-key.smack 10 5000 Query Barrel Report for client smacker1 connect: max=3ms min=2ms avg= 2ms from 10 clients Query_type num_queries max_time min_time q_per_s select_index 100000 0 0 16029.86 %super-smack ./select-key.smack 10 5000 Query Barrel Report for client smacker1 connect: max=2ms min=0ms avg= 1ms from 10 clients Query_type num_queries max_time min_time q_per_s select_index 100000 0 0 14732.03Received on Thu Dec 29 2005 - 04:05:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:49 UTC