On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 16:12:32 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Emilio G. Cota <c...@braap.org> writes:
> > This serves as a performance benchmark as well as a stress test
> > for QHT. We can tweak quite a number of things, including the
> > number of resize threads and how frequently resizes are triggered.
> >
> > A performance comparison of QHT vs CLHT[1] and ck_hs[2] using
> > this same benchmark program can be found here:
> > http://imgur.com/a/0Bms4
> >
> > The tests are run on a 64-core AMD Opteron 6376.
>
> It would be useful to include the template of the command line arguments
> for these plots here. For example when I run it without any arguments I
> get:
>
>
> Results:
> Read: 34.21 M (100.00% of 34.21M)
> Inserted: 0.00 M (-nan% of 0.00M)
> Removed: 0.00 M (-nan% of 0.00M)
> Throughput: 34.21 MT/s
> Throughput/thread: 34.21 MT/s/thread
>
> Looking at the graph it says 200k keys, so:
>
> $ ./tests/qht-bench -k 200000
> qht-bench: tests/qht-bench.c:309: htable_init: Assertion `init_size <=
> init_range `
>
> So I'm a little confused on how I'm running this benchmark.
./qht-bench -d $duration -n $n -u $u -k $range -K $range -l $range -r $range -s
$range
where $duration is in seconds, $n is the number of threads, $u is the update
rate (0.0 to 100.0), and $range is the number of keys.
Most people will want to set all of -k,K,l,r,s to the same value, so it might
be a good idea to add another parameter to set them all at once.
E.
