I need some help to determine whether the memory bandwidth I'm seeing under Linux on my server is normal or not. Here's the server spec:
HP ProLiant DL165 G7
2x AMD Opteron 6164 HE 12-Core
40 GB RAM (10 x 4GB DDR1333)
Debian 6.0
Using mbw on this server I get the following numbers:
foo1:~# mbw -n 3 1024
Long uses 8 bytes. Allocating 2*134217728 elements = 2147483648 bytes of memory.
Using 262144 bytes as blocks for memcpy block copy test.
Getting down to business... Doing 3 runs per test.
0 Method: MEMCPY Elapsed: 0.58047 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 1764.082 MiB/s
1 Method: MEMCPY Elapsed: 0.58012 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 1765.152 MiB/s
2 Method: MEMCPY Elapsed: 0.58010 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 1765.201 MiB/s
AVG Method: MEMCPY Elapsed: 0.58023 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 1764.811 MiB/s
0 Method: DUMB Elapsed: 0.36174 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 2830.778 MiB/s
1 Method: DUMB Elapsed: 0.35869 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 2854.817 MiB/s
2 Method: DUMB Elapsed: 0.35848 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 2856.481 MiB/s
AVG Method: DUMB Elapsed: 0.35964 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 2847.310 MiB/s
0 Method: MCBLOCK Elapsed: 0.23546 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 4348.860 MiB/s
1 Method: MCBLOCK Elapsed: 0.23544 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 4349.230 MiB/s
2 Method: MCBLOCK Elapsed: 0.23544 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 4349.359 MiB/s
AVG Method: MCBLOCK Elapsed: 0.23545 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 4349.149 MiB/s
On one of my other servers (based on Intel Xeon E3-1270):
foo2:~# mbw -n 3 1024
Long uses 8 bytes. Allocating 2*134217728 elements = 2147483648 bytes of memory.
Using 262144 bytes as blocks for memcpy block copy test.
Getting down to business... Doing 3 runs per test.
0 Method: MEMCPY Elapsed: 0.18960 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 5400.901 MiB/s
1 Method: MEMCPY Elapsed: 0.18922 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 5411.690 MiB/s
2 Method: MEMCPY Elapsed: 0.18944 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 5405.491 MiB/s
AVG Method: MEMCPY Elapsed: 0.18942 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 5406.024 MiB/s
0 Method: DUMB Elapsed: 0.14838 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 6901.200 MiB/s
1 Method: DUMB Elapsed: 0.14818 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 6910.561 MiB/s
2 Method: DUMB Elapsed: 0.14820 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 6909.628 MiB/s
AVG Method: DUMB Elapsed: 0.14825 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 6907.127 MiB/s
0 Method: MCBLOCK Elapsed: 0.04362 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 23477.623 MiB/s
1 Method: MCBLOCK Elapsed: 0.04262 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 24025.151 MiB/s
2 Method: MCBLOCK Elapsed: 0.04258 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 24048.849 MiB/s
AVG Method: MCBLOCK Elapsed: 0.04294 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 23847.599 MiB/s
For reference here's what I get on my Intel based laptop:
laptop:~$ mbw -n 3 1024
Long uses 8 bytes. Allocating 2*134217728 elements = 2147483648 bytes of memory.
Using 262144 bytes as blocks for memcpy block copy test.
Getting down to business... Doing 3 runs per test.
0 Method: MEMCPY Elapsed: 0.40566 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 2524.269 MiB/s
1 Method: MEMCPY Elapsed: 0.38458 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 2662.638 MiB/s
2 Method: MEMCPY Elapsed: 0.38876 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 2634.043 MiB/s
AVG Method: MEMCPY Elapsed: 0.39300 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 2605.600 MiB/s
0 Method: DUMB Elapsed: 0.30707 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 3334.745 MiB/s
1 Method: DUMB Elapsed: 0.30425 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 3365.653 MiB/s
2 Method: DUMB Elapsed: 0.30342 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 3374.849 MiB/s
AVG Method: DUMB Elapsed: 0.30491 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 3358.328 MiB/s
0 Method: MCBLOCK Elapsed: 0.07875 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 13003.670 MiB/s
1 Method: MCBLOCK Elapsed: 0.08374 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 12228.034 MiB/s
2 Method: MCBLOCK Elapsed: 0.07635 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 13411.216 MiB/s
AVG Method: MCBLOCK Elapsed: 0.07961 MiB: 1024.00000 Copy: 12862.006 MiB/s
So according to mbw my laptop is 3 times faster than the server!!! Please help me explain this. I've also tried to mount a ram disk and use dd to benchmark it and I get similar differences so I don't think mbw is to blame.
I've checked the BIOS settings and the memory seem to be running at full speed. According to the hosting company the modules are all OK.
Could this have something to do with NUMA? It seems like Node Interleaving is disabled on this server. Will enabling it (thus turning off NUMA) make a difference?
foo1:~# numactl --hardware
available: 4 nodes (0-3)
node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5
node 0 size: 8190 MB
node 0 free: 7898 MB
node 1 cpus: 6 7 8 9 10 11
node 1 size: 12288 MB
node 1 free: 12073 MB
node 2 cpus: 18 19 20 21 22 23
node 2 size: 12288 MB
node 2 free: 12034 MB
node 3 cpus: 12 13 14 15 16 17
node 3 size: 8192 MB
node 3 free: 8032 MB
node distances:
node 0 1 2 3
0: 10 20 20 20
1: 20 10 20 20
2: 20 20 10 20
3: 20 20 20 10
UPDATE:
Have disabled NUMA (numa=off on linux boot) and disabled ECC in BIOS. No changes, still the same numbers as above.
UPDATE 2:
Here's the layout of the memory according to dmidecode:
PROC 1 DIMM 1
PROC 1 DIMM 4
PROC 1 DIMM 7
PROC 1 DIMM 10
PROC 1 DIMM 12
PROC 2 DIMM 1
PROC 2 DIMM 4
PROC 2 DIMM 7
PROC 2 DIMM 10
PROC 2 DIMM 12
These are all 4GB Samsung modules (part no M393B5270CH0-CH9)
I've had a look the the HP docs on how to populate the memory in this server and if I understand it correctly the modules that are currently in DIMM 12 should have been placed in the DIMM 3 slot. Can such a misconfiguration explain the results I'm getting?
UPDATE 3:
I have now removed 2 modules to get 4×4 GB on each side (4-4) placed in 1-4-7-10. Unfortunately I'm not seeing any difference in the benchmarks. Shouldn't the server be able to use all four channels now? I've also tried with the stream benchmark with multiple threads and the results are very disappointing. The only thing I can think about know is to ask the hosting company to replace the whole server…
UPDATE 4:
I must had done something wrong when I tested the last setup (32 GB) with stream yesterday because today I'm seeing excellent results:
foo1:~# ./stream
-------------------------------------------------------------
STREAM version $Revision: 5.9 $
-------------------------------------------------------------
This system uses 8 bytes per DOUBLE PRECISION word.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Array size = 2000000, Offset = 0
Total memory required = 45.8 MB.
Each test is run 10 times, but only
the *best* time for each is used.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Threads requested = 24
-------------------------------------------------------------
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
Printing one line per active thread....
-------------------------------------------------------------
Your clock granularity/precision appears to be 1 microseconds.
Each test below will take on the order of 703 microseconds.
(= 703 clock ticks)
Increase the size of the arrays if this shows that
you are not getting at least 20 clock ticks per test.
-------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING -- The above is only a rough guideline.
For best results, please be sure you know the
precision of your system timer.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Function Rate (MB/s) Avg time Min time Max time
Copy: 36873.0022 0.0009 0.0009 0.0010
Scale: 34699.5160 0.0009 0.0009 0.0010
Add: 30868.8427 0.0016 0.0016 0.0017
Triad: 25558.7904 0.0019 0.0019 0.0020
-------------------------------------------------------------
Solution Validates
-------------------------------------------------------------
(I've abandoned mbw since it only runs in single threaded mode. It still gives the same crappy results on this server).
So the problem must have been those two last 4GB modules that forced the server to run in single channel mode just like @chx pointed out below. Now the only remaining question is if it is possible to use 40 GB and still get the full bandwidth? Can I use 2 x 8GB + 6 x 4GB? Does it matter in which channel I place the larger modules?
Best Answer
You are forcing the system to operate in single channel (!) mode by using 5-5 modules per CPU instead of 4-4 or 8-8. That's the reason. Try removing 1 - 1 and report back.
The 6164 is a G34 socket CPU which is capable of quad channel operating if the memory modules are setup right. Your setup is the worst possible.