lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>
Subject Re: lucene 2.9.0RC4 slower than 2.4.1?
Date Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:33:03 GMT
Remember to disable CPU frequency scaling when benchmarking... some
things with IO cause the freq to drop, and when it's CPU bound again
it takes a while for Linux to scale up the freq again.

For example, on my ubuntu box, ChannelFile went from 100MB/sec to
388MB/sec.  This effect probably won't be uniform across
implementations either.

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just really I hadn't sent this one. Here are results from the harddrive:
>
> It looks like its closer to the same speed on the hardrive once
> everything is loaded in the system cache (as you'd expect). SeparateFile
> was 1200 vs almost 1700 on RAMDISK. ChannelPread looked a lot closer though.
>
>
> - Mark
>
> Tests from harddisk (filesystem cache warmed):
>
> config: impl=SeparateFile serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100
> bufsize=1024 poolsize=2 filelen=730554368
> answer=-282293977, ms=238230, MB/sec=1226.6370616630988
>
> config: impl=ChannelPread serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100
> bufsize=1024 poolsize=2 filelen=730554368
> answer=-282295361, ms=766340, MB/sec=381.3212767179059
>
>
> Mark Miller wrote:
>> Michael McCandless wrote:
>>
>>> I don't like that the answer is different... but it's really really
>>> odd that it's different-yet-almost-the-same.
>>>
>>> Mark, were these 4 results on a normal (ext4) filesystem, or tmpfs?
>>> (Because the top 2 entries of your 4 results match the first set of 2
>>> entries you sent... so I'm thinking these 4 were actually tmpfs not
>>> ext4).
>>>
>>>
>> Those 4 were tmpfs - I mention ext4 at the end because I had just given
>> a feel for the hardrive tests and wanted to note it was from ext4 - the
>> results are def ramdisk though.
>>
>>> What JRE/OS, linux, kernel versions, and hardware, are you running on?
>>>
>>>
>> These are on:
>> Ubuntu Karmic Koala 9.10, currently updated
>> java-1.5.0-sun-1.5.0.20
>> 2.6.31-10-generic
>>
>> RAM: 3.9 Gig
>> 4 core Intel Core2 duo 2.0GHz
>>
>> Slow 5200 rpm laptop drives.
>>
>>
>>> The gains of SeparateFile over all else are stunning.  And, quite
>>> different from the linux tests I had run under LUCENE-753.  Maybe we
>>> need to revert FSDir.open to return SimpleFSDir again, on non-Windows
>>> hosts.  But then we don't have good concurrency...
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Yonik Seeley
>>> <yonik.seeley@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's been a while since I wrote that benchmarker... is it OK that the
>>>> answer is different?  Did you use the same test file?
>>>>
>>>> -Yonik
>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The results:
>>>>>
>>>>> config: impl=SeparateFile serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100
>>>>> bufsize=1024 poolsize=2 filelen=730554368
>>>>> answer=-282295611, ms=173550, MB/sec=1683.7899579371938
>>>>>
>>>>> config: impl=ChannelFile serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100
>>>>> bufsize=1024 poolsize=2 filelen=730554368
>>>>> answer=-282295361, ms=1377768, MB/sec=212.09793463050383
>>>>>
>>>>> config: impl=ChannelPread serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100
>>>>> bufsize=1024 poolsize=2 filelen=730554368
>>>>> answer=-282295361, ms=632253, MB/sec=462.19115955163517
>>>>>
>>>>> config: impl=PooledPread serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100
>>>>> bufsize=1024 poolsize=2 filelen=730554368
>>>>> answer=-282295361, ms=774664, MB/sec=377.2238637654518
>>>>>
>>>>> ClassicFile was heading for the same fate as ChannelFile.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll have to check what its like on the file system - but it appears
>>>>> just ridiculously slower. Even with SeparateFile, All 4 cores are bouncing
>>>>> from 0-12% independently and really favoring the low end of that.
>>>>> ChannelPread appears no better.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are results from other OS's/setups in the JIRA issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm using ext4.
>>>>>
>>>>> Uwe Schindler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> How does a conventional file system compare?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> Uwe Schindler
>>>>>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>>>>>> http://www.thetaphi.de
>>>>>> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:15 PM
>>>>>>> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: lucene 2.9.0RC4 slower than 2.4.1?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed - I just ran the FileReaderTest on a Linux tmpfs ramdisk
- with
>>>>>>>> SeparateFile all 4 of my cores are immediately pinned and
remain so.
>>>>>>>> With ChannelFile, all 4 cores hover 20-30%.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would appear it may not be a good idea to use NIOFSDirectory
on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ramdisks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even still though - it looks like you have a further issue
- your Lucene
>>>>>>>> 2.9 old-api results don't use it, and are still not good.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The quick results:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ramdisk: sudo mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /tmp/space -o
>>>>>>> size=1G,nr_inodes=200k,mode=01777
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> config: impl=SeparateFile serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100
>>>>>>> bufsize=1024 poolsize=2 filelen=730554368
>>>>>>> answer=-282295611, ms=173550, MB/sec=1683.7899579371938
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> config: impl=ChannelFile serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100
>>>>>>> bufsize=1024 poolsize=2 filelen=730554368
>>>>>>> answer=-282295361, ms=1377768, MB/sec=212.09793463050383
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> - Mark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> - Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message