Gentoo Archives: gentoo-performance

From: Michael W Spitzer <mwspitzer@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-performance@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-performance] performance testing
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:33:32
Message-Id: cb8f18260704300530q24b6649eh7594a459c60bd130@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-performance] performance testing by Miguel Sousa Filipe
1 I'd agree with Miguel. In general, I can't tell the difference in most
2 applications. I did some tests on OpenOffice a few years ago and found the 8
3 hour compile time wasn't worth it in terms of performance. Where Gentoo
4 shines is in giving you the increased ability to shrink your installed size.
5 I have nothing on this machine that I don't specifically want there and I
6 work overly hard to keep my compile flags exactly right.
7
8 That said, I'd be interested in seeing your results. It would be nice to
9 know that all of this work is beneficial for more than just keeping me
10 happy.
11
12 Mike
13
14 On 4/30/07, Miguel Sousa Filipe <miguel.filipe@×××××.com> wrote:
15 >
16 > Hi there,
17 >
18 > On 4/29/07, Peter A. H. Peterson <pedro@×××××××××××.net> wrote:
19 > > Hi Everyone,
20 > >
21 > > My name is Peter Peterson and I represent a group of a grad students
22 > > at UCLA. We're in a computer systems performance analysis course and we
23 > > were hoping to do a general performance comparison of gentoo vs. a
24 > > popular binary i386-compatible distribution (probably ubuntu) in some
25 > > "real-world" server tests to try and meaningfully calculate the
26 > > performance gains that local compilation provides. (For example,
27 > > apache2 requests processed per second on the same hardware.)
28 > >
29 > > I've subscribed to this list because we want the gentoo community to
30 > > be involved in helping us design the tests so that we can hopefully
31 > > all feel good about what and how we are testing the systems.
32 > >
33 > > We have no particular outcome in mind; our group represents a wide
34 > > range of computer users, from Mac, Linux, and Windows enthusiasts, and
35 > > we have all used a wide variety of Linux distributions. We have simply
36 > > noticed that much of the discussion of gentoo's performance advantage
37 > > is anecdotal and we're genuinely hoping to provide some meaningful
38 > > experimental data for discussion. Also, if anyone knows of any
39 > > available benchmark data or papers on this subject, we'd love to hear
40 > > about them. There was apparently a paper on slashdot a couple of years
41 > > ago, but the host it was on appears to now be squatted. For that
42 > > matter, if this is a well understood or closed issue (for example, if
43 > > the statistics that people quote are actually from good experimental
44 > > data) please let us know.
45 > >
46 > > Is anyone here interested in discussing this project? We are
47 > > specifically interested in discussing methodology, testing suits,
48 > > CFLAGS and other options. Our desire is not to "trick out" gentoo or
49 > > ubuntu, but rather quantify the performance benefit that gentoo has
50 > > over binary distributions with "normal" compile flags (whatever normal
51 > > is).
52 > >
53 >
54 > A good CFLAGS would be something not very agressive, something like:
55 > -march=<cpuType> -O3 or -O2 and at most -fomit-frame-pointer.
56 > (Scientific workloads can speedup considerably with: -ffast-math)
57 >
58 > Having experienced and done some benchmarks with gentoo and other
59 > distros on servers and on scientific workstations.
60 > What I found is that sometimes gentoo lacks critical performance
61 > patches in glibc that are applied to mainstream distros (redhat,
62 > suse..etc) that provide boosts in memcpy, memset, etc..(I remmember a
63 > discussion about that some years ago).
64 > What I also found out is that the compiler flags only affect
65 > workloads that are very compute intensive. not something that depends
66 > almost completely on FSB load or IO load.. like most server
67 > workloads... -O3 doesn't do much to a working set full of
68 > unpredictable branches (like server workloads usually are) and low IPC
69 > rate.
70 >
71 > I really do believe performance boost from gentoo to be practically
72 > negligible. The difference will only be apreciable in very few corner
73 > cases. Most distros also optimize critical aplications such has:
74 > openssl, mplayer.. reducing the possible corner cases.
75 >
76 > Anyways, doing a "academic" benchmark would be a good idea.
77 >
78 > Something like:
79 > micro-benchmarks:
80 > - stream (mem bandwith benchmark)
81 > - ??
82 >
83 > macro-benchmarks:
84 > - apache2 + gzip + php(make it cpu intensive, not IO intensive)
85 > - xmlmark ?
86 > - kernelbench
87 > - pybench ?
88 > - openssl bench
89 >
90 >
91 > about methodology:
92 > - same system, same bios version, same disks.
93 > - All OSes must be installed in the same disk partitions.
94 > - the will be trouble about the kernel config:
95 > - for mainstream distros you should use the kernel that is provided.
96 > - for gentoo, gentoo-sources configured by someone which is
97 > experienced, and informed about configuration impacts on performance
98 > (ideally a kernel hacker?).
99 >
100 > - should use the stable versions in gentoo portage?
101 > - or should use the same application versions used on mainstream distro?
102 >
103 >
104 >
105 > --
106 > Miguel Sousa Filipe
107 > --
108 > gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list
109 >
110 >