SODA Noriyuki wrote:

> I think I should describe my background more.
> The following is what Simon and I saw 6 months ago.
> (I really should post this result long ago. Sorry, esp. Simon.)
> 
> You may remember the following Simon's benchmark on pc532:
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-perform/2002/11/27/0000.html
> 
> At 1.5X age, this benmark took 9:33.82 with current default VM tuning
> parameters. And it took only 2:06.78 with vm.anonmax=95.
> So, it was considered that anonmax=95 was better than anonmax=80 in
> this benchmark on his pc532.
> But that's not exactly correct, according to what Simon and I saw...
> 
> On NetBSD 2.0F/pc532, the benchmark took 44:52.74 (!) even with same
> compiler and same VM parameters. So, we did try some tuning as below:
> 
> time (real)		      vm.bufmem_hiwater	vm.{anon,exec,file}{min,max}
> 44:52.74  74+ 67io 325664pf+1w	1228800 (15%)	{{10, 95},{ 5,30},{10,50}} [0]
> 14:52.89  40+ 68io  96290pf+1w	1228800 (15%)	{{10, 95},{ 5,30},{ 1, 2}} [1]
> 14:02.90  96+ 66io  89123pf+1w	 409600 ( 5%)	{{10, 95},{ 5,30},{ 1, 2}} [2]
> 13:26(*)  71+ 89io  83238pf+3w	 131072 ( 1.6%)	{{10, 95},{ 5,30},{ 1, 2}} [3]
>  2:13.61  81+116io   4621pf+1w	 131072 ( 1.6%)	{{10, 95},{ 0, 1},{ 1, 2}} [4]
> 15:19.45  65+ 92io 102869pf+1w	 131072 ( 1.6%)	{{10, 95},{ 0,30},{ 1, 2}} [5]
>  3:53.07  66+ 96io  16304pf+1w	 131072 ( 1.6%)	{{10,100},{ 0,30},{ 0, 1}} [6]
>  2:13(*)			 131072 ( 1.6%)	{{10, 95},{ 0,15},{ 0, 1}} [7]
>  1:49.73  77+ 97io   2868pf+1w	 131072 ( 1.6%)	{{10, 90},{ 0,15},{ 0, 1}} [8]
>  1:56.12  55+ 94io   3436pf+1w	 131072 ( 1.6%)	{{10, 80},{ 0,15},{ 0, 1}} [9]
> (*) not exact value.

Just for kicks, here's some times with a -current kernel from sources
around March 7th.  This is a trimmed down kernel with no IPV6,
filesystems I don't use, etc (same as the above 2.0F benchmarks).  When
the kernel boots, I see:

	NetBSD 2.99.16 (PC532) #65: Thu Mar 10 08:36:15 EST 2005
	total memory = 8192 KB
	avail memory = 6992 KB

time (real)                  vm.bufmem_hiwater vm.{anon,exec,file}{min,max}
7:44.74 43.3%   0+0k 101+39io 44309pf+1w  524288  {{10,95},{ 5,30},{10,50}}
4:43.54 43.3%   0+0k   5+26io 17627pf+1w  524288  {{10,95},{ 5,10},{ 5,15}}
2:53.01 53.1%   0+0k   4+24io  7883pf+1w  131072  {{10,95},{ 5,10},{ 5,15}}
2:14.59 60.2%   0+0k   4+24io  4552pf+1w  131072  {{10,95},{ 5,10},{ 0, 5}}
1:56.30 65.7%   0+0k   4+24io  3404pf+1w  131072  {{10,95},{ 5,10},{ 0, 1}}
1:54.14 66.5%   0+0k   4+24io  3261pf+1w  131072  {{10,95},{ 0,10},{ 0, 1}}
1:51.39 67.9%   0+0k   4+23io  3209pf+1w  131072  {{10,80},{ 0,10},{ 0, 1}}

Note that the user time component of was a relatively constant 60 to 61
seconds, and system time was 139 seconds in the first down to 15 seconds
in the last test.

Compare those times with a trimmed down kernel against a GENERIC kernel
(6284 KB free at boot) for the vm tunables with the fastest time above.

time (real)                  vm.bufmem_hiwater vm.{anon,exec,file}{min,max}
8:55.57 44.2%  0+0k 3+24io 52780pf+1w  131072  {{10,80},{ 0,10},{ 0, 1}}

And then compare that with a 1.5X GENERIC kernel (6220KB free):

55.189u  20.468s  2:06.78 59.6% 0+0k 71+63io  5364pf+0w

Simon.
--
Simon Burge                            <simonb@wasabisystems.com>
NetBSD Support and Service:         http://www.wasabisystems.com/