Nightly regression run results

Here are links to some 2.5.70 nightly regression comparisons:

Each -bk snapshot compared to the base:

http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk1/2.5.70-vs-2.5.70-bk1/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk2/2.5.70-vs-2.5.70-bk2/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk3/2.5.70-vs-2.5.70-bk3/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk4/2.5.70-vs-2.5.70-bk4/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk5/2.5.70-vs-2.5.70-bk5/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk6/2.5.70-vs-2.5.70-bk6/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk7/2.5.70-vs-2.5.70-bk7/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk8/2.5.70-vs-2.5.70-bk8/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk9/2.5.70-vs-2.5.70-bk9/

Each -bk snapshot compared to the previous:

http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk1/2.5.70-bk1-vs-2.5.70-bk2/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk2/2.5.70-bk2-vs-2.5.70-bk3/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk3/2.5.70-bk3-vs-2.5.70-bk4/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk4/2.5.70-bk4-vs-2.5.70-bk5/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk5/2.5.70-bk5-vs-2.5.70-bk6/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk6/2.5.70-bk6-vs-2.5.70-bk7/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk7/2.5.70-bk7-vs-2.5.70-bk8/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-bk8/2.5.70-bk8-vs-2.5.70-bk9/

Each -mm patch compared to the base:

http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-mm1/2.5.70-vs-2.5.70-mm1/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-mm2/2.5.70-vs-2.5.70-mm2/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-mm3/2.5.70-vs-2.5.70-mm3/

Each -mm patch compared to the previous:

http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-mm2/2.5.70-mm1-vs-2.5.70-mm2/
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-mm3/2.5.70-mm2-vs-2.5.70-mm3/

Each -mjb patch compared to the base:

http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/linuxperf/regression/2.5.70-mjb1/2.5.70-vs-2.5.70-mjb1/

Mark

It appears your tiobench reads are coming out of cache. Would you be able add some runs with the size >= 2*ram please? I don't know if anyone would still find the current type useful - maybe for scalability work?

Thanks
Nick

Hi Nick,

Yes, the read tests do currently run primarily out of cache. This does have some value for measuring the relative overhead of the i/o apis. To avoid cache effects, and measure the real throughput, we need to bump the size up and, as you suggest, size*2 is a good value to use. We've tried to keep the overall test suite time down by maintaining shorter runs whereever possible. So rather than increasing to run size by 2, we will reduce the memory used, at boot, then use runs of newsmallsize*2. This will keep the runs from taking too long and also avoid the cache benefits. We will have to tweak this to come up with the appropriate balance of memsize vs run time. This should be available in a few days.

Thanks for the feedback.

Mark