On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 07:41:26AM -0800, David Mosberger-Tang wrote: > On 11/1/05, Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com> wrote: > > > I am trying to get time on one of our larger machines today to run the > > RandomAccess benchmark (as well as some help from somebody that has run > > these before). Is there a certain number of cpus you would like this > > run on or is a 64p box adequate? > > Oh, even a single CPU should be fine. Just use a large working set. > IIRC, about 16GB should ensure that not even the page tables fit in > the cache (depending on your cache-size, of course). I have not been able to see any difference. I am not sure what part of the hpccoutf.txt file. I think I should be looking at: Begin of SingleRandomAccess section. Main table size = 2^27 = 134217728 words Number of updates = 536870912 CPU time used = 107.997328 seconds Real time used = 108.077732 seconds 0.004967452 Billion(10^9) Updates per second [GUP/s] Found 0 errors in 134217728 locations (passed). Node(s) with error 0 Node selected 0 Single GUP/s 0.004967 Current time (1130893857) is Tue Nov 1 19:10:57 2005 End of SingleRandomAccess section. If so, this benchmark seems to have some unstable results. I ran 10 iterations on a 3-level kernel and got: CPU time used = 128.912032 seconds CPU time used = 109.921024 seconds CPU time used = 170.240752 seconds CPU time used = 118.555696 seconds CPU time used = 107.986592 seconds CPU time used = 126.163616 seconds CPU time used = 110.157216 seconds CPU time used = 115.738960 seconds CPU time used = 107.997328 seconds CPU time used = 108.786912 seconds Is this expected? Thanks, Robin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Wed Nov 02 21:36:25 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-11-02 21:36:36 EST