EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

1994  1995  <19961997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  Index 1994  1995  <19961997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Re: frc64/frc604RT performance
From: [email protected] (Noboru Yamamoto)
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:11:00 +0900
Marty Kraimer wrote:
>
>Noboru Yamamoto wrote:
>>
>> Ratio of CPU performances estimated from these numbers is,
>>
>>  frc40:frc64:frc604RT=1:1.3:4.1
>
>I am not sure what should be reported but another way is % cpu
>usage which is (100 - IDLE). This would give.
>
>68040 26.8%
>68060 22.1%
>frc604 5.1%
>
>Using 68040 as base and reporting as (68040 cpu)/(xxx cpu) gives
>
>frc40:frc64:frc604RT=1:1.2:5.25

Numbers I quoted as a ratio are 

        sqrt( average((ScanPeriod CPU 040)/(ScanPeriod CPU xx))
              * average((100- IDLE CPU 040)/(100 - IDLE CPU xxx))).

Average is take over scanperiods( 1 second to 0.1 second).

>
>Not sure which way makes most sense but they give similar results.
>
>I am really suprised by the 68060 numbers. Could you please
>tell us the following:
>
>For each cpu give
>   a) Speed of main memory.
>   b) Speed and size of cache memory.
>
>Also are you sure all board support packages turned cache on?
>
>Also is it possible to make up a small test case that just
>has a loop to does an integer multiply and another loop that
>does a double multiply? Make sure compiler doesnt optimize everything
>away. This test should show raw cpu performance.
>The database test may just be dependent on main memory speed
>and size of cache.
>
I will report it later.

>
>Marty Kraimer

Johny Tang wrote:

>
>Since the EPICS benchmark includes running medm,
>100-IDEL measure takes CA clients and network
>performance facts. % CPU on scanPeriod doesn't.
>
>Noboru, can you also show the % CPU on CA tasks ?
>

At the moment, I don't have % CPU on CA task on CPU64. 
For CPU40 and CPU604, we got
                CPU40           CPU604
scan            CA event CPU    CA event
 1 sec          1.9%            0.2% 
.5 sec          3.9%            0.5%
.2 sec          9.5%            1.4%
.1 sec          19.1%           

We use 10Mb Ethernet and HP735/755 running HP-UX9.05.
Version of EPICS is 3.12.2.

>
>Johnny Tang
>
>--
>_____________________________________________
>
>Johnny Tang
>
>Tel: (757)269-7239
>Fax: (757)269-7049
>E-Mail: [email protected]
>
>Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
>(CEBAF)
>Accelerator Software Control
>12000 Jefferson Avenue, MS 85A
>Newport News, Virginia 23606
>_____________________________________________
Noboru Yamamoto
KEKB Accelerator Control Group
KEK, JAPAN
Fax:+81-298-64-0321
Tel:+81-298-64-5309
e-mail:[email protected]


Navigate by Date:
Prev: CapFast follies Bret Goodrich
Next: frcX vs. mvmeX on performance Johnny Tang
Index: 1994  1995  <19961997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Re: frc64/frc604RT performance KAJI Masahiro
Next: Enhanced vxWorks Variable support Andrew Johnson
Index: 1994  1995  <19961997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
ANJ, 10 Aug 2010 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·