DOCSLIB.ORG

A Lightweight Processor Benchmark Mark Claypool Worcester Polytechnic Institute, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Lightweight Processor Benchmark Mark Claypool Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Claypool@Wpi.Edu View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DigitalCommons@WPI Worcester Polytechnic Institute DigitalCommons@WPI Computer Science Faculty Publications Department of Computer Science 7-1-1998 Touchstone - A Lightweight Processor Benchmark Mark Claypool Worcester Polytechnic Institute, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/computerscience-pubs Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Suggested Citation Claypool, Mark (1998). Touchstone - A Lightweight Processor Benchmark. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/computerscience-pubs/206 This Other is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Computer Science at DigitalCommons@WPI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Computer Science Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WPI. WPI-CS-TR-98-16 July 1998 Touchstone { A Lightweight Pro cessor Benchmark by Mark Claypool Computer Science Technical Rep ort Series WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE Computer Science Department 100 Institute Road, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609-2280 Touchstone { A Lightweight Pro cessor Benchmark Mark Claypool [email protected] Worcester Polytechnic Institute Computer Science Department August 11, 1998 Abstract Benchmarks are valuable for comparing pro cessor p erformance. However, p orting and run- ning pro cessor b enchmarks on new platforms can b e dicult. Touchstone, a simple addition b enchmark, is designed to overcome p ortability problems, while retaining p erformance measure- ment accuracy. In this pap er, we present exp erimental results that showTouchstone correlates strongly with pro cessor p erformance under other b enchmarks. Equally imp ortant, we presenta measure of p ortability that demonstrates Touchstone is easier to p ort and run than other b ench- marks. We conclude that while Touchstone is not a replacement for more extensive pro cessor b enchmarks, it can b e used for quick, reasonably accurate estimations of pro cessor p erformance. Keywords: b enchmark, pro cessor p erformance, measurement 1 Intro duction benchmark v. trans - to sub ject a system to a series of tests in order to obtain prear- ranged results not available on comp etitive systems. { S. Kel ly-Bootle, \The Devil's DP Dictionary" Standard measures of p erformance for computers systems provide a basis for comparison, which can lead to system improvements and predictions of e ectiveness under other applications. If computer users ran the same programs day in and day out, p erformance comparisons would b e straight-forward. As this will never b e the case, systems must rely on other metho ds to predict p erformance under estimated workloads. The pro cess of p erformance comparison for two or more systems by measurements is called benchmarking, and the workloads used in the measurements are called benchmarks. Broadly, there are four typ es of b enchmarks [10,11]: Real programs. Real programs are applications that users will actually run on the system. Observ- ing a system running such programs may b e a go o d indication of p erformance under normal op erations. Examples are language compilers suchasgcc, acc and f77, text-pro cessing to ols like TeX and Framemaker, and computer-aided design to ols like Spice. 1 Kernels. Kernels are small, key pieces from real programs. Unlike real programs, no user runs kernel programs, for they exist only for p erformance measurements. They are b est used to isolate p erformance of key system features. Examples are LINPACK see Section 2 for more information and the Livermore Loops [14]. Synthetic benchmarks. Synthetic b enchmarks havecharacteristics similar to those of a set of real programs and can b e applied rep eatedly in a controlled manner. They require no real-world data les that may b e large and contain sensitive data, and can b e easily p orted without a ecting their basic op eration. They often have built-in measurement capabilities. Examples are Spec see Section 2 for more information, Whetstone [7] and Dhrystone [15]. Toy benchmarks. Toy b enchmarks are small pieces of co de that pro duce results known b efore hand. They are small, easy to implement, and can b e run on almost any computer. They may b e used in some real programs, but often are not. Examples are the Sieve of Eratosthenes and Quicksort see Section 2 for more information. Although the ab ove b enchmarks may provide valuable system p erformance information, they are often dicult to run prop erly. Determining the correct mix of real programs is dicult and in- stalling real programs can b e time-consuming and resource intensive. Gcc, for example, required more disk space than we had available and demanded a signifcant amount of compilation time see Section 3.2 for more details. Running kernels can b e dicult without the necessary compilers and often small changes are required to p ort kernels b etween platforms. LINPACK, for example, requires a Fortran compiler and a user-supplied second function, that caused us p orting dif- culties see Section 3.2 for more details. Co ding toy b enchmarks can b e surprisingly dicult. Many computer professionals nd it dicult to accurately co de a Mergesort correctly, despite un- derstanding the algorithm. Obtaining reputed synthetic programs can b e equally challenging. For instance, although SPEC is non-pro t, they charge a supp ort and development fee for use of their b enchmarks. Prices in 1995 were [6]: Benchmark Typ e Price CPU intensiveinteger b enchmarks $ 425 CPU intensive oating p oint b enchmarks $ 575 Integer and oating p oint b enchmarks $ 900 System level le server NFS workload $ 1200 UNIX software developmentworkloads $ 1450 Even the basic integer or oating p oint b enchmarks are far to o much for the average graduate student wishing to simply explore workstation p erformance. Toovercome some of the diculties in running standard b enchmarks, we present Touchstone,a lightweight b enchmark for pro cessor p erformance. Touchstone is pro cess that incrementsavariable in a tight lo op for a xed p erio d of time. The value that it rep orts represents the p ower of the pro cessor; the higher the numb er, the more p owerful the pro cessor while the lower the numb er, the less p owerful the pro cessor. Touchstone's b eauty is its simplicity.At its core, Touchstone uses only 2 lines of high-level co de, a branch and an add. These commands are found on all systems and in all languages. Its simplicity makes it easy to p ort while its basic functionality provides a surprisingly accurate measure of system p erformance. 2 Increment instruction b enchmarks, suchasTouchstone, are not new. Historically, pro cessors were the most exp ensive and the most used system comp onents. Initially, computers had very few instructions, the most frequent of whichwas addition. Thus, the computer that added faster was considered a b etter p erformer. As the numb er and complexity of instructions grew, the addition b enchmark was no longer sucient as the only means of measuring pro cessor p erformance. This remains true to day, and so Touchstone should not replace existing b enchmarks. However, rather than b eing abandoned, Touchstone should b e used as a quick, easy way to give an approximate estimate of pro cessor p erformance. Wehavetwohyp otheses ab out the usefulness of Touchstone: Hypothesis:Touchstone is a go o d indicator of pro cessor p erformance under other b ench- marks. Hypothesis:Touchstone is easier to p ort than other b enchmarks. The rest of this pap er is laid out as follows: Section 2 describ es exp eriments we ran to test our hyp otheses; Section 3 analyzes our exp erimental data and tests our hyp otheses; and Section 4 summarizes our conclusions and presents other p ossible uses for Touchstone. 2 Exp eriments touchstone noun - a test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of a thing. { Webster's 7th dictionary, on-line. In order to test our rst hyp othesis, Touchstone is a good indicator of processor performance under other benchmarks,we need to correlate Touchstone with one b enchmark from each of the four categories presented in Section 1. This Section describ es our exp eriments to gather data for these correlation computations. The four b enchmarks we selected are: gcc, LINPACK, SPEC int and fp and quicksort. To strengthen our results, we p erform correlations on nine di erent computer workstations. The workstations are: SGI Crimson, SGI Indigo 2 Extreme, Sun Sparc 10, Sun IPX, Sun Sparc 2, Intel 80486-33, SGI Personal Iris, Sun Sparc 1 and Intel 80386-20. Table 1 summarizes the systems. The next 5 subsections describ e the exp eriments involving Touchstone and each b enchmark. 2.1 Touchstone We ran Touchstone on the 9 platforms listed ab ove. Since the countTouchstone rep orts is sensitive to other pro cesses running concurrently,we p ostulate that lightly loaded machines a must for accurate measurements. We p erformed the exp eriments on machines with a minimum of other pro cesses. In order to facilitate nding when time-shared machines are little used, we develop ed a network script to monitor pro cessor load. Figure 1 depicts the sample output from one of our script runs. In this case, the script help ed us avoid running Touchstone during the 3 a.m. system 3 Workstation Op erating System Pro cessor Sp eed RAM SGI Crimson Irix 5.2 100 Mhz 160 Mbytes SGI Indigo 2 Extreme Irix 5.2 100 Mhz 32 Mbytes Sun Sparc 10 SunOs 4.1.4 33 Mhz 64 Mbytes SGI Personal Iris Irix 4.01 20 Mhz 32 Mbytes Sun IPX SunOs 4.1.4 40 Mhz 40 Mbytes Sun Sparc 2 SunOs 4.1.4 40 Mhz 30 Mbytes Sun Sparc 1 SunOs 4.0.2 20 Mhz 20 Mbytes Intel 80486 Linux 1.2.13 33 Mhz 8Mbytes Intel 80386 Linux 1.2.13 20 Mhz 8Mbytes Table 1: Exp erimental platforms.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Memory Centric Characterization and Analysis of SPEC CPU2017 Suite
    Session 11: Performance Analysis and Simulation ICPE ’19, April 7–11, 2019, Mumbai, India Memory Centric Characterization and Analysis of SPEC CPU2017 Suite Sarabjeet Singh Manu Awasthi [email protected] [email protected] Ashoka University Ashoka University ABSTRACT These benchmarks have become the standard for any researcher or In this paper, we provide a comprehensive, memory-centric charac- commercial entity wishing to benchmark their architecture or for terization of the SPEC CPU2017 benchmark suite, using a number of exploring new designs. mechanisms including dynamic binary instrumentation, measure- The latest offering of SPEC CPU suite, SPEC CPU2017, was re- ments on native hardware using hardware performance counters leased in June 2017 [8]. SPEC CPU2017 retains a number of bench- and operating system based tools. marks from previous iterations but has also added many new ones We present a number of results including working set sizes, mem- to reflect the changing nature of applications. Some recent stud- ory capacity consumption and memory bandwidth utilization of ies [21, 24] have already started characterizing the behavior of various workloads. Our experiments reveal that, on the x86_64 ISA, SPEC CPU2017 applications, looking for potential optimizations to SPEC CPU2017 workloads execute a significant number of mem- system architectures. ory related instructions, with approximately 50% of all dynamic In recent years the memory hierarchy, from the caches, all the instructions requiring memory accesses. We also show that there is way to main memory, has become a first class citizen of computer a large variation in the memory footprint and bandwidth utilization system design.
    [Show full text]
  • Microbenchmarks in Big Data
    M Microbenchmark Overview Microbenchmarks constitute the first line of per- Nicolas Poggi formance testing. Through them, we can ensure Databricks Inc., Amsterdam, NL, BarcelonaTech the proper and timely functioning of the different (UPC), Barcelona, Spain individual components that make up our system. The term micro, of course, depends on the prob- lem size. In BigData we broaden the concept Synonyms to cover the testing of large-scale distributed systems and computing frameworks. This chap- Component benchmark; Functional benchmark; ter presents the historical background, evolution, Test central ideas, and current key applications of the field concerning BigData. Definition Historical Background A microbenchmark is either a program or routine to measure and test the performance of a single Origins and CPU-Oriented Benchmarks component or task. Microbenchmarks are used to Microbenchmarks are closer to both hardware measure simple and well-defined quantities such and software testing than to competitive bench- as elapsed time, rate of operations, bandwidth, marking, opposed to application-level – macro or latency. Typically, microbenchmarks were as- – benchmarking. For this reason, we can trace sociated with the testing of individual software microbenchmarking influence to the hardware subroutines or lower-level hardware components testing discipline as can be found in Sumne such as the CPU and for a short period of time. (1974). Furthermore, we can also find influence However, in the BigData scope, the term mi- in the origins of software testing methodology crobenchmarking is broadened to include the during the 1970s, including works such cluster – group of networked computers – acting as Chow (1978). One of the first examples of as a single system, as well as the testing of a microbenchmark clearly distinguishable from frameworks, algorithms, logical and distributed software testing is the Whetstone benchmark components, for a longer period and larger data developed during the late 1960s and published sizes.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the SPEC Benchmarks
    9 Overview of the SPEC Benchmarks Kaivalya M. Dixit IBM Corporation “The reputation of current benchmarketing claims regarding system performance is on par with the promises made by politicians during elections.” Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC) was founded in October, 1988, by Apollo, Hewlett-Packard,MIPS Computer Systems and SUN Microsystems in cooperation with E. E. Times. SPEC is a nonprofit consortium of 22 major computer vendors whose common goals are “to provide the industry with a realistic yardstick to measure the performance of advanced computer systems” and to educate consumers about the performance of vendors’ products. SPEC creates, maintains, distributes, and endorses a standardized set of application-oriented programs to be used as benchmarks. 489 490 CHAPTER 9 Overview of the SPEC Benchmarks 9.1 Historical Perspective Traditional benchmarks have failed to characterize the system performance of modern computer systems. Some of those benchmarks measure component-level performance, and some of the measurements are routinely published as system performance. Historically, vendors have characterized the performances of their systems in a variety of confusing metrics. In part, the confusion is due to a lack of credible performance information, agreement, and leadership among competing vendors. Many vendors characterize system performance in millions of instructions per second (MIPS) and millions of floating-point operations per second (MFLOPS). All instructions, however, are not equal. Since CISC machine instructions usually accomplish a lot more than those of RISC machines, comparing the instructions of a CISC machine and a RISC machine is similar to comparing Latin and Greek. 9.1.1 Simple CPU Benchmarks Truth in benchmarking is an oxymoron because vendors use benchmarks for marketing purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Hypervisors Vs. Lightweight Virtualization: a Performance Comparison
    2015 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering Hypervisors vs. Lightweight Virtualization: a Performance Comparison Roberto Morabito, Jimmy Kjällman, and Miika Komu Ericsson Research, NomadicLab Jorvas, Finland [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract — Virtualization of operating systems provides a container and alternative solutions. The idea is to quantify the common way to run different services in the cloud. Recently, the level of overhead introduced by these platforms and the lightweight virtualization technologies claim to offer superior existing gap compared to a non-virtualized environment. performance. In this paper, we present a detailed performance The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: in comparison of traditional hypervisor based virtualization and Section II, literature review and a brief description of all the new lightweight solutions. In our measurements, we use several technologies and platforms evaluated is provided. The benchmarks tools in order to understand the strengths, methodology used to realize our performance comparison is weaknesses, and anomalies introduced by these different platforms in terms of processing, storage, memory and network. introduced in Section III. The benchmark results are presented Our results show that containers achieve generally better in Section IV. Finally, some concluding remarks and future performance when compared with traditional virtual machines work are provided in Section V. and other recent solutions. Albeit containers offer clearly more dense deployment of virtual machines, the performance II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK difference with other technologies is in many cases relatively small. In this section, we provide an overview of the different technologies included in the performance comparison.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Measurement Tutorial for the Green500 List
    Power Measurement Tutorial for the Green500 List R. Ge, X. Feng, H. Pyla, K. Cameron, W. Feng June 27, 2007 Contents 1 The Metric for Energy-Efficiency Evaluation 1 2 How to Obtain P¯(Rmax)? 2 2.1 The Definition of P¯(Rmax)...................................... 2 2.2 Deriving P¯(Rmax) from Unit Power . 2 2.3 Measuring Unit Power . 3 3 The Measurement Procedure 3 3.1 Equipment Check List . 4 3.2 Software Installation . 4 3.3 Hardware Connection . 4 3.4 Power Measurement Procedure . 5 4 Appendix 6 4.1 Frequently Asked Questions . 6 4.2 Resources . 6 1 The Metric for Energy-Efficiency Evaluation This tutorial serves as a practical guide for measuring the computer system power that is required as part of a Green500 submission. It describes the basic procedures to be followed in order to measure the power consumption of a supercomputer. A supercomputer that appears on The TOP500 List can easily consume megawatts of electric power. This power consumption may lead to operating costs that exceed acquisition costs as well as intolerable system failure rates. In recent years, we have witnessed an increasingly stronger movement towards energy-efficient computing systems in academia, government, and industry. Thus, the purpose of the Green500 List is to provide a ranking of the most energy-efficient supercomputers in the world and serve as a complementary view to the TOP500 List. However, as pointed out in [1, 2], identifying a single objective metric for energy efficiency in supercom- puters is a difficult task. Based on [1, 2] and given the already existing use of the “performance per watt” metric, the Green500 List uses “performance per watt” (PPW) as its metric to rank the energy efficiency of supercomputers.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 — Arithmetic for Computers 2 MIPS Arithmetic Logic Unit (ALU) Zero Ovf
    Chapter 3 Arithmetic for Computers 1 § 3.1Introduction Arithmetic for Computers Operations on integers Addition and subtraction Multiplication and division Dealing with overflow Floating-point real numbers Representation and operations Rechnerstrukturen 182.092 3 — Arithmetic for Computers 2 MIPS Arithmetic Logic Unit (ALU) zero ovf 1 Must support the Arithmetic/Logic 1 operations of the ISA A 32 add, addi, addiu, addu ALU result sub, subu 32 mult, multu, div, divu B 32 sqrt 4 and, andi, nor, or, ori, xor, xori m (operation) beq, bne, slt, slti, sltiu, sltu With special handling for sign extend – addi, addiu, slti, sltiu zero extend – andi, ori, xori overflow detection – add, addi, sub Rechnerstrukturen 182.092 3 — Arithmetic for Computers 3 (Simplyfied) 1-bit MIPS ALU AND, OR, ADD, SLT Rechnerstrukturen 182.092 3 — Arithmetic for Computers 4 Final 32-bit ALU Rechnerstrukturen 182.092 3 — Arithmetic for Computers 5 Performance issues Critical path of n-bit ripple-carry adder is n*CP CarryIn0 A0 1-bit result0 ALU B0 CarryOut0 CarryIn1 A1 1-bit result1 B ALU 1 CarryOut 1 CarryIn2 A2 1-bit result2 ALU B2 CarryOut CarryIn 2 3 A3 1-bit result3 ALU B3 CarryOut3 Design trick – throw hardware at it (Carry Lookahead) Rechnerstrukturen 182.092 3 — Arithmetic for Computers 6 Carry Lookahead Logic (4 bit adder) LS 283 Rechnerstrukturen 182.092 3 — Arithmetic for Computers 7 § 3.2 Addition and Subtraction 3.2 Integer Addition Example: 7 + 6 Overflow if result out of range Adding +ve and –ve operands, no overflow Adding two +ve operands
    [Show full text]
  • The High Performance Linpack (HPL) Benchmark Evaluation on UTP High Performance Computing Cluster by Wong Chun Shiang 16138 Diss
    The High Performance Linpack (HPL) Benchmark Evaluation on UTP High Performance Computing Cluster By Wong Chun Shiang 16138 Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Technology (Hons) (Information and Communications Technology) MAY 2015 Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Bandar Seri Iskandar 31750 Tronoh Perak Darul Ridzuan CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL The High Performance Linpack (HPL) Benchmark Evaluation on UTP High Performance Computing Cluster by Wong Chun Shiang 16138 A project dissertation submitted to the Information & Communication Technology Programme Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY (Hons) (INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY) Approved by, ____________________________ (DR. IZZATDIN ABDUL AZIZ) UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS TRONOH, PERAK MAY 2015 ii CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY This is to certify that I am responsible for the work submitted in this project, that the original work is my own except as specified in the references and acknowledgements, and that the original work contained herein have not been undertaken or done by unspecified sources or persons. ________________ WONG CHUN SHIANG iii ABSTRACT UTP High Performance Computing Cluster (HPCC) is a collection of computing nodes using commercially available hardware interconnected within a network to communicate among the nodes. This campus wide cluster is used by researchers from internal UTP and external parties to compute intensive applications. However, the HPCC has never been benchmarked before. It is imperative to carry out a performance study to measure the true computing ability of this cluster. This project aims to test the performance of a campus wide computing cluster using a selected benchmarking tool, the High Performance Linkpack (HPL).
    [Show full text]
  • A Study on the Evaluation of HPC Microservices in Containerized Environment
    ReceivED XXXXXXXX; ReVISED XXXXXXXX; Accepted XXXXXXXX DOI: xxx/XXXX ARTICLE TYPE A Study ON THE Evaluation OF HPC Microservices IN Containerized EnVIRONMENT DeVKI Nandan Jha*1 | SaurABH Garg2 | Prem PrAKASH JaYARAMAN3 | Rajkumar Buyya4 | Zheng Li5 | GrAHAM Morgan1 | Rajiv Ranjan1 1School Of Computing, Newcastle UnivERSITY, UK Summary 2UnivERSITY OF Tasmania, Australia, 3Swinburne UnivERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, AustrALIA Containers ARE GAINING POPULARITY OVER VIRTUAL MACHINES (VMs) AS THEY PROVIDE THE ADVANTAGES 4 The UnivERSITY OF Melbourne, AustrALIA OF VIRTUALIZATION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF NEAR bare-metal. The UNIFORMITY OF SUPPORT PROVIDED 5UnivERSITY IN Concepción, Chile BY DockER CONTAINERS ACROSS DIFFERENT CLOUD PROVIDERS MAKES THEM A POPULAR CHOICE FOR DEVel- Correspondence opers. EvOLUTION OF MICROSERVICE ARCHITECTURE ALLOWS COMPLEX APPLICATIONS TO BE STRUCTURED INTO *DeVKI Nandan Jha Email: [email protected] INDEPENDENT MODULAR COMPONENTS MAKING THEM EASIER TO manage. High PERFORMANCE COMPUTING (HPC) APPLICATIONS ARE ONE SUCH APPLICATION TO BE DEPLOYED AS microservices, PLACING SIGNIfiCANT RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS ON THE CONTAINER FRamework. HoweVER, THERE IS A POSSIBILTY OF INTERFERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT MICROSERVICES HOSTED WITHIN THE SAME CONTAINER (intra-container) AND DIFFERENT CONTAINERS (inter-container) ON THE SAME PHYSICAL host. In THIS PAPER WE DESCRIBE AN Exten- SIVE EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF DockER CONTAINERS EXECUTING HETEROGENEOUS HPC microservices. WE ARE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH HOW INTRa- CONTAINER AND inter-container INTERFERENCE INflUENCES THE performance. MoreoVER, WE INVESTIGATE THE PERFORMANCE VARIATIONS IN DockER CONTAINERS WHEN CONTROL GROUPS (cgroups) ARE USED FOR RESOURCE limitation. FOR EASE OF PRESENTATION AND REPRODUCIBILITY, WE USE Cloud Evaluation Exper- IMENT Methodology (CEEM) TO CONDUCT OUR COMPREHENSIVE SET OF Experiments.
    [Show full text]
  • Asustek Computer Inc.: Asus P6T
    SPEC CFP2006 Result spec Copyright 2006-2014 Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (Test Sponsor: Intel Corporation) SPECfp 2006 = 32.4 Asus P6T Deluxe (Intel Core i7-950) SPECfp_base2006 = 30.6 CPU2006 license: 13 Test date: Oct-2008 Test sponsor: Intel Corporation Hardware Availability: Jun-2009 Tested by: Intel Corporation Software Availability: Nov-2008 0 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 27.0 30.0 33.0 36.0 39.0 42.0 45.0 48.0 51.0 54.0 57.0 60.0 63.0 66.0 71.0 70.7 410.bwaves 70.8 21.5 416.gamess 16.8 34.6 433.milc 34.8 434.zeusmp 33.8 20.9 435.gromacs 20.6 60.8 436.cactusADM 61.0 437.leslie3d 31.3 17.6 444.namd 17.4 26.4 447.dealII 23.3 28.5 450.soplex 27.9 34.0 453.povray 26.6 24.4 454.calculix 20.5 38.7 459.GemsFDTD 37.8 24.9 465.tonto 22.3 470.lbm 50.2 30.9 481.wrf 30.9 42.1 482.sphinx3 41.3 SPECfp_base2006 = 30.6 SPECfp2006 = 32.4 Hardware Software CPU Name: Intel Core i7-950 Operating System: Windows Vista Ultimate w/ SP1 (64-bit) CPU Characteristics: Intel Turbo Boost Technology up to 3.33 GHz Compiler: Intel C++ Compiler Professional 11.0 for IA32 CPU MHz: 3066 Build 20080930 Package ID: w_cproc_p_11.0.054 Intel Visual Fortran Compiler Professional 11.0 FPU: Integrated for IA32 CPU(s) enabled: 4 cores, 1 chip, 4 cores/chip, 2 threads/core Build 20080930 Package ID: w_cprof_p_11.0.054 CPU(s) orderable: 1 chip Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 (for libraries) Primary Cache: 32 KB I + 32 KB D on chip per core Auto Parallel: Yes Secondary Cache: 256 KB I+D on chip per core File System: NTFS Continued on next page Continued on next page Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation [email protected] Page 1 http://www.spec.org/ SPEC CFP2006 Result spec Copyright 2006-2014 Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation ASUSTeK Computer Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Benchmarking for Cloud Computing Systems
    Fair Benchmarking for Cloud Computing Systems Authors: Lee Gillam Bin Li John O’Loughlin Anuz Pranap Singh Tomar March 2012 Contents 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 2 Background .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 3 Previous work ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Literature ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Related Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 6 4 Preparation ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Cloud Providers................................................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Cloud APIs ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.3 Benchmark selection ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling and Analyzing CPU Power and Performance: Metrics, Methods, and Abstractions
    Modeling and Analyzing CPU Power and Performance: Metrics, Methods, and Abstractions Margaret Martonosi David Brooks Pradip Bose VET NOV TES TAM EN TVM DE I VI GE T SV B NV M I NE Moore’s Law & Power Dissipation... Moore’s Law: ❚ The Good News: 2X Transistor counts every 18 months ❚ The Bad News: To get the performance improvements we’re accustomed to, CPU Power consumption will increase exponentially too... (Graphs courtesy of Fred Pollack, Intel) Why worry about power dissipation? Battery life Thermal issues: affect cooling, packaging, reliability, timing Environment Hitting the wall… ❚ Battery technology ❚ ❙ Linear improvements, nowhere Past: near the exponential power ❙ Power important for increases we’ve seen laptops, cell phones ❚ Cooling techniques ❚ Present: ❙ Air-cooled is reaching limits ❙ Power a Critical, Universal ❙ Fans often undesirable (noise, design constraint even for weight, expense) very high-end chips ❙ $1 per chip per Watt when ❚ operating in the >40W realm Circuits and process scaling can no longer solve all power ❙ Water-cooled ?!? problems. ❚ Environment ❙ SYSTEMS must also be ❙ US EPA: 10% of current electricity usage in US is directly due to power-aware desktop computers ❙ Architecture, OS, compilers ❙ Increasing fast. And doesn’t count embedded systems, Printers, UPS backup? Power: The Basics ❚ Dynamic power vs. Static power vs. short-circuit power ❙ “switching” power ❙ “leakage” power ❙ Dynamic power dominates, but static power increasing in importance ❙ Trends in each ❚ Static power: steady, per-cycle energy cost ❚ Dynamic power: power dissipation due to capacitance charging at transitions from 0->1 and 1->0 ❚ Short-circuit power: power due to brief short-circuit current during transitions.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone?
    Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone? JENNIFER M. ANDERSON, LANCE M. BERC, JEFFREY DEAN, SANJAY GHEMAWAT, MONIKA R. HENZINGER, SHUN-TAK A. LEUNG, RICHARD L. SITES, MARK T. VANDEVOORDE, CARL A. WALDSPURGER, and WILLIAM E. WEIHL Digital Equipment Corporation This article describes the Digital Continuous Profiling Infrastructure, a sampling-based profiling system designed to run continuously on production systems. The system supports multiprocessors, works on unmodified executables, and collects profiles for entire systems, including user programs, shared libraries, and the operating system kernel. Samples are collected at a high rate (over 5200 samples/sec. per 333MHz processor), yet with low overhead (1–3% slowdown for most workloads). Analysis tools supplied with the profiling system use the sample data to produce a precise and accurate accounting, down to the level of pipeline stalls incurred by individual instructions, of where time is being spent. When instructions incur stalls, the tools identify possible reasons, such as cache misses, branch mispredictions, and functional unit contention. The fine-grained instruction-level analysis guides users and automated optimizers to the causes of performance problems and provides important insights for fixing them. Categories and Subject Descriptors: C.4 [Computer Systems Organization]: Performance of Systems; D.2.2 [Software Engineering]: Tools and Techniques—profiling tools; D.2.6 [Pro- gramming Languages]: Programming Environments—performance monitoring; D.4 [Oper- ating Systems]: General; D.4.7 [Operating Systems]: Organization and Design; D.4.8 [Operating Systems]: Performance General Terms: Performance Additional Key Words and Phrases: Profiling, performance understanding, program analysis, performance-monitoring hardware An earlier version of this article appeared at the 16th ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles (SOSP), St.
    [Show full text]