hyper threading.
John Pettitt
jpp at cloudview.com
Sat Mar 26 15:54:08 PST 2005
Paul A. Hoadley wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>
>
>
>>Where can I see the measurements?
>>
>>
>
>Here are some measurements. A few weeks ago I ran Unixbench 4.1.0
>(/usr/ports/benchmarks/unixbench) on a P4 2.8GHz with and without
>hyperthreading enabled. I note a slight difference in the 10 minute
>load average in favour of the uniprocessor run (0.00 vs 0.10 in the
>hyperthreading run), though I doubt this alone could account for a 15%
>difference in total score.
>
>
>Uniprocessor run:
>-----------------
> BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1.0)
> System -- bigbird.logicsquad.net
> Start Benchmark Run: Sun Feb 20 08:23:08 CST 2005
> 14 interactive users.
> 8:23AM up 3 days, 14:37, 14 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
> [snip]
> =========
> FINAL SCORE 270.4
>
>
>Hyperthreading run:
>-------------------
> BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1.0)
> System -- bigbird.logicsquad.net
> Start Benchmark Run: Sun Feb 20 17:22:33 CST 2005
> 2 interactive users.
> 5:22PM up 2 mins, 2 users, load averages: 0.31, 0.23, 0.10
> [snip]
> =========
> FINAL SCORE 228.9
>
>
Notice the HT run had load on the box (0.31) when it started. If you're
going to run benchmarks you need to start with a clean reboot before
each run and make sure all the background daemons have been killed and
and the load is zero.
However even then this is not a good test of HT - the point of HT is to
improve throughput in multi thread workloads and the benchmark suite is
basically single thread. What would be more interesting would be to
run a test with a constant background load also running. In theory
the HT should do a better job of balancing the load between the
benchmark and the background than the BSD scheduler can on it's own. I
don't have an HT box here or I'd try it but I'd love to know how it
comes out if somebody is up for it.
>
>
>
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list