Garbo/Garbo.cdr/pc/source/byteunix.lzh/byte.3/bench.doc

Text File | 1990-05-11 | 14.3 KB | 228 lines

@BT

[TITLE]BYTE's UNIX Benchmarks
[DEK]Separating fact from fiction in the exploding UNIX empire
[TOC]Before you jump into the UNIX pool, see how your favorite system stacks
up against the rest of the pack.

Ben Smith

In making purchase decisions, it's difficult to know whom to believe. Each
vendor claims, predictably, that their products are better than the
competition's, but how does one prove, or debunk, these claims?
  Cost and performance typically top the list of considerations for those
seeking to purchase equipment, and while cost can be easily compared,
performance cannot, and comparing costs without analyzing each system's
relative value is a worthless exercise.
  When DOS became popular, it allowed for the development of performance
measurement programs, benchmarks, that would run on any system that ran DOS.
BYTE's lab technicians set about creating their own, and the BYTE DOS
benchmarks were born. Dozens of systems have been clocked using these
facilities, and each review of a new DOS-based system includes the results of
these benchmarks.
  This is all very well, but while DOS is installed on a great many systems,
it is no longer the !ITAL!only!ENDITAL! popular multi-platform operating
system. User demands for greater expandability, better performance and
multi-tasking have turned UNIX systems into one of the fastest growing
segments of the market. When UNIX stepped from minicomputers to workstations,
it established itself as the defacto OS for an exciting new breed of machine.
Now, with solid implementations for affordable Intel and Motorola-based
platforms, UNIX is making a name for itself in the PC realm. As UNIX finds
its way into the mainstream, it is necessary to have the tools to objectively
measure not only the performance of various hardware platforms, but of
different versions of UNIX as well.

!SUBHED!Unix is Not MS-DOS!ENDSUBHED!
Conceptually, BYTE's UNIX benchmarks are the same as BYTE's MS-DOS
benchmarks: We have combined evaluation of both low-level operations and
high-level applications type programs to highlight the performance of the
entire system.
  But UNIX is considerably different from MS-DOS. In the first place, it is a
!ITAL!multi!ENDITAL!-tasking, !ITAL!multi!ENDITAL!-user operating system. It
is also portable, able to run on many different kinds of computers. MS-DOS is
a !ITAL!single!ENDITAL!-tasking, !ITAL!single!ENDITAL!-user operating system,
and it is intended to run on essentially one kind of computer, an IBM-PC or
PC ``clone,'' utilizing a specific class of processor from Intel. As a
result, the UNIX benchmarks differ from their MS-DOS counterparts. Even
though there are some equivalent low-level tests, you will find that even
these run differently; the popular Dhrystone benchmark commonly gives
different results, on the same hardware, when run under both DOS and UNIX.
The reason? Different compilers are being used, and the underlying operating
systems and services are wildly different.
  Another important difference is that Microsoft is the only real source of
DOS; other suppliers simply repackage Microsoft's basic operating system
under other names. In contrast, there are many different kinds of UNIX, and
while similarities exist (the core UNIX from Dell, Everex and Interactive
Systems are virtually the same), there are UNIX and UNIX-like operating
systems that differ greatly from one another. Conclusion: The UNIX benchmarks
are evaluating the implementation of UNIX and the resident compiler as well
as the hardware on which it is running (the MS-DOS and Apple Macintosh
benchmarks use a common compiler, the public-domain Small C).
  With so many variables, what is constant? Well, we have established a
baseline, SCO Xenix 386 version 2.3.1. running on the Everex 386/33 with 4
Mbytes of RAM and an 80387 math coprocessor. While it isn't UNIX per se
(because AT&T decides which implementations may be called ``UNIX''), it is
more popular than any other PC UNIX implementation. It is specifically
designed for 80386-based computers with full 32 bit memory access. The Everex
386/33 was chosen because it is one of today's highest performance 386
computers properly configured to run the full 32 bit operating system. (Some
386 computers cannot access memory through single 32 bit operations; small
matter if you are just running MS-DOS, an 8 bit operating system, but serious
if you want to run UNIX.) This combination of system and OS is timely, but
we'll continue to adjust the baseline as needed to reflect the installed PC
and workstation UNIX base.

!SUBHED!The Low Level Bench Programs!ENDSUBHED!
The BYTE UNIX benchmarks consist of eight groups of programs: arithmetic,
system calls, memory operations, disk operations, dhrystone, database
operations, system loading, and miscellaneous. These can be roughly divided
into the low-level tests (arithmetic, system calls, memory, disk, and
dhrystone) and high-level tests (database operations, system loading, and the
C-compiler test that is part of the miscellaneous set).
  The Dhrystone test is known more formally as ``Dhrystone 2''. It performs
no floating-point operations, but it does involve arrays, character strings,
indirect addressing, and most of the non-floating point instructions that
might be found in an application program. It also includes conditional
operations and other common program flow controls. The output of the test is
the number of dhrystone loops per second. It is used in the BYTE benchmarks
because of its wide selection of operations and because it is one of the most
widely run benchmark programs.
  A future version of the BYTE UNIX benchmarks will include the Whetstone
benchmark test program, as well. The Whetstone benchmark is conceptually
similar to the Dhrystone, but with an emphasis on math; it is a mix of
floating point and integer arithmetic, function calls, array operations,
conditionals, and transcendental function calls.
  All the arithmetic tests have the same source code with different data
types substituted for the operations: register, short, int, long, float,
double, and an empty loop for calculating the overhead required by the
program. The actual test involves assignment, addition, subtraction,
multiplication, and division. Very simple. But don't bother running the float
and double precision test unless you have a math co-processor; what takes a
math co-processor system 15 seconds, may take an unaided processor 30 minutes
or more!
  The system call tests are: system call overhead, pipe throughput, pipe
context switching, spawning of child processes, execl (replacement of the
current process by a new process), and file read, write, and copy. The system
call overhead test evaluates the time required to do iterations of
!MONO!dup()!ENDMONO!, !MONO!close()!ENDMONO!, !MONO!getpid()!ENDMONO!,
!MONO!getuid()!ENDMONO!, and !MONO!umask()!ENDMONO! calls.
  The pipe throughput test has no real counterpart in real-world programming;
in it, a single process opens a pipe (an inter-process communications channel
that works rather like its plumbing namesake) to itself and spins a megabyte
around this short loop. You might call this the pipe overhead test. The
context switching pipe test is more like a real-world application; the test
program spawns a child process with which it carries on a bi-directional pipe
conversation.
  The spawn test creates a child process which immediately dies after its own
!MONO!fork()!ENDMONO!. The process is repeated over and over. Similarly, the
exec test is a process that repeatedly changes to a new incarnation. One of
the arguments passed to the new incarnation is the number of remaining
iterations (there has to be some control, after all).
 The file read, write, and copy tests capture the number of characters that
can be written, read, and copied in a specified time (default is 10 seconds).
If you run this test with the minimum element (1 second), you should see a
significantly higher value for all operations if your system implements disk
cacheing. Be sure you have plenty of disk space before you run this test.

!SUBHED!The High-Level Bench Programs!ENDSUBHED!
To qualify as a high-level test, the test must involve operations that a
real-world application program might employ, including heavy use of the CPU
and disk. At the time of writing this article, we have currently implemented
only the system loading and database tests, but we will be adding several new
tests in the months ahead.
  The system loading test is a shell script that is run by 1, 2, 4, and 8
concurrent processes. The script consists of an alphabetic sort one file to
another; taking the octal dump of the result and doing a numeric sort to a
third file; running grep on the result of the alphabetic sort file;
!MONO!tee!ENDMONO!ing the result to a file and to !MONO!wc!ENDMONO! (word
count); writing the final result to a file; and removing all of the resulting
files. This script was used in the original BYTE UNIX benchmarks (1983), but
the source file is several magnitudes larger than the original.
  The C compile and link is nothing more than that.
  The database operations consist of random read, write, and add operations
on a database file. The operations are handled by a server process; the
requests come from client processes. The test is run with 1, 2, 4, and 8
client processes. The test employs semaphores and message queues. Semaphores
are being used less and less these days. BSD systems use sockets instead in
place of both of these System V.3 IPC utilities. System V.4 offers both. This
test is being rewritten using sockets, but since Xenix doesn't implement
sockets, our baseline configuration becomes instantly obsolete when we
replace the database test. Just another one of those little problems in
trying to create journalistic computer benchmarks: any program that has been
fully debugged is probably obsolete [ Murphy, et al ].

!SUBHED!Miscellany!ENDSUBHED!
The remaining tests are in the miscellaneous group: Tower of Hanoi (a test of
recursive operations) and a test of the UNIX arbitrary precision calculator
calculating the square root of two to 99 decimal places.
  No doubt, we will be adding tests to this suite as we see the need to test
and evaluate from different perspectives.

!SUBHED!Problems in the Modern World!ENDSUBHED!
The major problem we have had with developing the UNIX benchmark programs is
designing them so that they fairly reflect the strengths and weaknesses of
all the systems on which we anticipate using them. For example, the
operations should allow RISC machines to give appropriately high performance
for the sorts of operations that RISC is good for, and should also illustrate
improvements provided by faster bus speeds, better math coprocessors and the
like. In the case of RISC, the efficiency of the compiler is of utmost
importance; RISC compilers must rearrange instructions to take advantage of
instruction pipelining (for an overview of RISC, see BYTE, May 1988).
  The majority of the UNIX systems that we look at employ disk caching. This
is especially important because modern UNIX includes swapping and paging out
to disk when there is insufficient memory for a task or the number of tasks.
It is an interesting exercise to run the disk file operations test with
increasingly large files and note the point at which performance drops.

!SUBHED!How They Work!ENDSUBHED!
A 400 line Bourne shell script (!MONO!Run!ENDMONO!) administers the
benchmarking system. After the evaluation of the command line options, the
benchmarking operation for each test has three stages: parameter setup,
timing the execution of the test, and calculation/formatting operations (see
Figure 1). After !MONO!Run!ENDMONO! determines the parameters for the test,
it sends a formatted description to the output file. !MONO!Run!ENDMONO! then
invokes the specific test by means of the UNIX command !MONO!time!ENDMONO!.
The output of !MONO!time!ENDMONO! and any output from the test itself end up
in a raw data file. Most tests are run six times so that any variance can be
averaged. On completion of a set of tests, !MONO!Run!ENDMONO! invokes a
cleanup script, which does the statistical calculations on the raw data using
the !MONO!awk!ENDMONO! formatting language.
  The greater part of the benchmark programs are written in C and are
compiled on the test machine prior to running the tests.

!SUBHED!Using the Results!ENDSUBHED!
If all you need is a raw measure of performance, then feel free to use the
Dhrystone and Whetstone tests as indices of just that. But if you want to use
the benchmarks to evaluate a machine's ability to serve some real need, then
you should do the following:
1. Analyze your requirements as far as the type of computing, amount and type
of communications I/O, and amount and type of disk I/O.
2. Score the subject machines using weighting factors that reflect your
requirements.
3. Generate a price vs. performance plot.
4. Use the price vs. performance, along with information about the
reliability servicability of the hardware.
  Step 4 is really more of an art than anything else. It is extremely
important, however, to not rely on price vs. performance alone.
 We use our UNIX Benchmarks for doing a rough analysis and comparison of
divergent machines. (See figure 2, ``UNIX Machines Tested.'') As you can see,
we even go so far as to generate a single index number, a sort of reduction
of all of the benchmark tests to a single value. This index is generated by
summing the the individual indices of the dhrystone test, the floating point
test, the shell test with eight concurrent processes, the C compiler time,
the !MONO!dc!ENDMONO! routine, and the tower of hanoi time. By definition,
the combined index for the baseline machine is six. Indicess above six imply
a better overall performance than the baseline machine; indices less than
six, worse performance. Always keep in mind that having a single index rating
for a machine may make good cocktail conversation, but it is incredibly
simplistic. It is like reducing a complex sculptural shape to a single point;
you no longer can tell what you are looking at. This number doesn't reflect
any real-world use of a UNIX system. However, the index is devised so that it
gives an overall indication of different kinds of system operations and so is
valuable to our reviews.
  BYTE's UNIX benchmarking suite is small enough to port easily to any UNIX
system, yet diverse and flexible enough to be useful for a wide spectrum of
benchmarking requirements. Besides, they're in the public domain, so they can
be obtained for little, if any, cost. What better reason do you need to use
them?