Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Pro vs. E02 - Some Benchmarks

Posted by LeggoMyEggo 
Pro vs. E02 - Some Benchmarks
March 19, 2015 06:15PM
I picked up a bricked E02 on eBay and was able to fix it with serial console. I thought it the appropriate time to compare the performance with my Pro. Here are some benchmarks for both devices using a Sandisk 16GB Ultra Fit 3.0 Flash Drive on both and then a 320gb 7200rpm Seagate 2.5 drive in Esata enclosure for the Pro:

Pogoplug E02 USB with latest u-boot and 3.17.0 rootfs:
root@pogoplug:~# uname -a
Linux 3.17.0-kirkwood-tld-1 #4 PREEMPT Wed Oct 22 00:55:17 PDT 2014 armv5tel GNU/Linux

root@pogoplug:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
 Timing cached reads:   528 MB in  2.00 seconds = 263.77 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  86 MB in  3.07 seconds =  28.02 MB/sec

root@pogoplug:~# sysbench --test=cpu --cpu-max-prime=2000 --num-threads=2 run
sysbench 0.4.12:  multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark

Running the test with following options:
Number of threads: 2

Doing CPU performance benchmark

Threads started!
Done.

Maximum prime number checked in CPU test: 2000


Test execution summary:
    total time:                          102.3354s
    total number of events:              10000
    total time taken by event execution: 204.6112
    per-request statistics:
         min:                                 10.22ms
         avg:                                 20.46ms
         max:                                 40.25ms
         approx.  95 percentile:              20.30ms

Threads fairness:
    events (avg/stddev):           5000.0000/0.00
    execution time (avg/stddev):   102.3056/0.02

Pogoplug Pro @850Mhz USB with latest u-boot and 3.18.5 rootfs:

root@debian:~# uname –a 
Linux debian 3.18.5-oxnas-tld-1 #2 SMP PREEMPT Thu Feb 12 11:17:40 PST 2015 armv6l GNU/Linux

root@debian:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
 Timing cached reads:   506 MB in  2.00 seconds = 252.62 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  84 MB in  3.06 seconds =  27.46 MB/sec

root@debian:~# sysbench --test=cpu --cpu-max-prime=2000 --num-threads=2 run
sysbench 0.4.12:  multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark

Running the test with following options:
Number of threads: 2

Doing CPU performance benchmark

Threads started!
Done.

Maximum prime number checked in CPU test: 2000


Test execution summary:
    total time:                          59.7179s
    total number of events:              10000
    total time taken by event execution: 119.4018
    per-request statistics:
         min:                                 11.70ms
         avg:                                 11.94ms
         max:                                 44.25ms
         approx.  95 percentile:              12.46ms

Threads fairness:
    events (avg/stddev):           5000.0000/29.00
    execution time (avg/stddev):   59.7009/0.00
.
Pogoplug Pro @ 850Mhz SATA with latest u-boot and 3.18.5 rootfs:

root@debian:~# uname -a
Linux debian 3.18.5-oxnas-tld-1 #2 SMP PREEMPT Thu Feb 12 11:17:40 PST 2015 armv6l GNU/Linux

root@debian:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
 Timing cached reads:   512 MB in  2.01 seconds = 255.36 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads: 266 MB in  3.00 seconds =  88.54 MB/sec

root@debian:~# sysbench --test=cpu --cpu-max-prime=2000 --num-threads=2 run
sysbench 0.4.12:  multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark

Running the test with following options:
Number of threads: 2

Doing CPU performance benchmark

Threads started!
Done.

Maximum prime number checked in CPU test: 2000


Test execution summary:
    total time:                          59.7617s
    total number of events:              10000
    total time taken by event execution: 119.4815
    per-request statistics:
         min:                                 11.70ms
         avg:                                 11.95ms
         max:                                 57.55ms
         approx.  95 percentile:              12.46ms

Threads fairness:
    events (avg/stddev):           5000.0000/32.00
    execution time (avg/stddev):   59.7407/0.01

I am not sure why the E02 is not doing as well as the Pro. I thought even overclocked the Pro would barely manage to reach an E02's sysbench . Wrong assumption? Maybe I am doing something wrong? Comments appreciated.

Also, if you wanna compare sysbench numbers to some more modern SOC's, look here: http://wiki.glidernet.org/cpu-boards



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2015 06:42PM by LeggoMyEggo.
Re: Pro vs. E02 - Some Benchmarks
March 19, 2015 06:34PM
Just did some memory benchmarks. Here they are...still shaking head at the extreme disparity:

Pogoplug E02

root@pogoplug:~# sysbench --test=memory --memory-block-size=512K --memory-total-size=512M run
sysbench 0.4.12:  multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark

Running the test with following options:
Number of threads: 1

Doing memory operations speed test
Memory block size: 512K

Memory transfer size: 512M

Memory operations type: write
Memory scope type: global
Threads started!
Done.

Operations performed: 1024 (  723.00 ops/sec)

512.00 MB transferred (361.50 MB/sec)


Test execution summary:
    total time:                          1.4163s
    total number of events:              1024
    total time taken by event execution: 1.4137
    per-request statistics:
         min:                                  1.38ms
         avg:                                  1.38ms
         max:                                  1.62ms
         approx.  95 percentile:               1.38ms

Threads fairness:
    events (avg/stddev):           1024.0000/0.00
    execution time (avg/stddev):   1.4137/0.00

Pogoplug Pro

root@debian:~# sysbench --test=memory --memory-block-size=512K --memory-total-size=512M run
sysbench 0.4.12:  multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark

Running the test with following options:
Number of threads: 1

Doing memory operations speed test
Memory block size: 512K

Memory transfer size: 512M

Memory operations type: write
Memory scope type: global
Threads started!
Done.

Operations performed: 1024 ( 2086.90 ops/sec)

512.00 MB transferred (1043.45 MB/sec)


Test execution summary:
    total time:                          0.4907s
    total number of events:              1024
    total time taken by event execution: 0.4863
    per-request statistics:
         min:                                  0.46ms
         avg:                                  0.47ms
         max:                                  1.46ms
         approx.  95 percentile:               0.48ms

Threads fairness:
    events (avg/stddev):           1024.0000/0.00
    execution time (avg/stddev):   0.4863/0.00



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2015 06:35PM by LeggoMyEggo.
Re: Pro vs. E02 - Some Benchmarks
March 19, 2015 06:51PM
thanks for the benchmarks. gives me something to compare mine against.....
doesnt surprise me tho, when its a single core arm5te versus an armv6 dual core with faster memory.
Re: Pro vs. E02 - Some Benchmarks
March 19, 2015 07:17PM
Gravelrash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thanks for the benchmarks. gives me something to
> compare mine against.....
> doesnt surprise me tho, when its a single core
> arm5te versus an armv6 dual core with faster
> memory.

Yes, dual-core the reason.

-bodhi
===========================
Forum Wiki
bodhi's corner
Re: Pro vs. E02 - Some Benchmarks
March 19, 2015 07:19PM
Gravelrash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> doesnt surprise me tho, when its a single core
> arm5te versus an armv6 dual core with faster
> memory.

For some strange reason I thought the Kirkwoods always performed better than the Oxnas and judging by the level of support for Oxnas - barely any and if it weren't for the work of people of this board then there would be none - it was destined for the ashheap. I guess that was wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2015 07:20PM by LeggoMyEggo.
Re: Pro vs. E02 - Some Benchmarks
March 21, 2015 11:28PM
Thanks from me too. I don't suppose you have a watt meter on hand would you? No matter what other devices I see out there, I keep coming back to the idea something can run on 5 watts or less.

By way of comparison, my older DISH network 311 receiver takes up 20 watts even when it's supposedly off. Then a couple watts higher when "on".

So i still have plans for my E02 to be the heartbeat of a home cloud. And way less heat than any thin client I've tested. Thin Clients can get warm!
Author:

Your Email:


Subject:


Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically. If the code is hard to read, then just try to guess it right. If you enter the wrong code, a new image is created and you get another chance to enter it right.
Message: