1 / 10

Varying Memory Size with TPC-C Performance and Resource Effects

Varying Memory Size with TPC-C Performance and Resource Effects. Jay Veazey and Blaine Gaither Hewlett-Packard Jay.Veazey@hp.com Blaine.Gaither@hp.com. Motivation --- why is this interesting?. More memory increases performance How much? Why exactly?

ameyers
Télécharger la présentation

Varying Memory Size with TPC-C Performance and Resource Effects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Varying Memory Size with TPC-CPerformance and Resource Effects Jay Veazey and Blaine Gaither Hewlett-Packard Jay.Veazey@hp.com Blaine.Gaither@hp.com CAECW 2008 -- Salt Lake City -- Veazey & Gaither

  2. Motivation --- why is this interesting? • More memory increases performance • How much? • Why exactly? • Reveal and quantify the underlying causes • Focus is R&D tradeoffs • Performance, cost, schedule, power • How much memory to design into a commercial server? • Is memory latency more important than memory size? CAECW 2008 -- Salt Lake City -- Veazey & Gaither

  3. Experimental Design • Vary memory 32-192 GBytes • Measure • Throughput • Resource utilization • CPU, disk I/O, memory BW, CPI, OS context switches • HP Integrity rx6600 • Itanium 2 9050 CPUs (2S/4C) • About 750 disk drives • TPC-C • Resource intensive • Standard, “coin of the realm”…easy to communicate • Unofficial results CAECW 2008 -- Salt Lake City -- Veazey & Gaither

  4. Throughput • Increase of 48% in throughput CAECW 2008 -- Salt Lake City -- Veazey & Gaither

  5. Resource Utilization Disk I/O and CPU utilization • I/O reduction accounts for 20% of the 48% throughput improvement. • Where’s the rest of it? CAECW 2008 -- Salt Lake City -- Veazey & Gaither

  6. CPI and Memory • As memory is added, CPU cycles are used more efficiently • But this is an effect, not a cause---why does CPI fall? CAECW 2008 -- Salt Lake City -- Veazey & Gaither

  7. CPI and Memory Bandwidth • CPI can change for many reasons, most irrelevant here • Memory accesses are relevant • When a load misses cache, the delay counts toward CPI CAECW 2008 -- Salt Lake City -- Veazey & Gaither

  8. Caches Stabilize with Increasing Memory • Units normalized for throughput • accesses (or misses) / sec / CPU / tpmC • L1 accesses imply that the registers also stabilize CAECW 2008 -- Salt Lake City -- Veazey & Gaither

  9. OS Thread Switches and Memory • Reduced thread switches probably cause of register / cache stabilization --- working sets stay around longer CAECW 2008 -- Salt Lake City -- Veazey & Gaither

  10. Summary and Conclusions • Adding memory increases performance significantly • I/O is reduced, as well as I/O instruction pathlength • Context switches are reduced as a result of less I/O • Fewer memory accesses • Lower CPI • More stable caches and registers CAECW 2008 -- Salt Lake City -- Veazey & Gaither

More Related