On 2009/10/04 08:54, MK wrote:
> Hi
>
> thank you for an answer. I repeated test according suggestion but
> still I think that my system is a slower than it should be.
>
> hw.model=Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N270 @ 1.60GHz ("GenuineIntel" 686-class)
> aes-128-cbc 9499.85k 11388.44k 12803.13k 13166.69k
> 13337.53k
> aes-256-cbc 7272.49k 8811.23k 9233.04k 9444.48k
> 9507.48k
Yep, it does seem a little slow. I dug out my eee 901, which looks
like this:
hw.model=Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N270 @ 1.60GHz ("GenuineIntel" 686-class)
hw.cpuspeed=1600
aes-128-cbc 9025.10k 8188.81k 13661.36k 18803.06k 18486.47k
aes-256-cbc 8418.11k 8694.41k 10652.56k 13046.04k 13441.75k
(for easier comparison I'll repeat the numbers from my 230 which
is a Jetway board here)
aes-128-cbc 19038.03k 22711.28k 25477.35k 26380.26k 26533.04k
aes-256-cbc 12845.55k 17726.87k 18514.90k 18995.34k 19078.13k
Don't forget things other than the CPU are important too; memory
bandwidth in particular. Are you making sure the machine is not in
a power-saving mode (check hw.cpuspeed) and is otherwise idle
(check top) when you run it?
> CPU specifications for Atom 230 and 270 are very similar so I
> expected to see more or less same numbers in the test but it showed
> it's much more slower.
> I run GENERIC.MP kernel but I tried also GENERIC with no improvement.
>
> Any idea?
I don't think there's any advantage to running MP on these systems,
they are single-core (hyperthreading probably doesn't help enough
to offset the overheads).
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Stuart Henderson" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 2:26 PM
> To: <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Is Intel Atom 270 really so slow?
>
> >On 2009-10-02, MK <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Hello
> >>
> >>I've just installed OpenBSD 4.5 on Intel Atom 270 1.6GHz mini ITX
> >>board and
> >>made some tests.
> >>CPU speed does not look very good, in fact I was comparing OpenSSL tests
> >>with my old Pentium III 500MHz and it's in many cases faster.
> >>(in ubench Pentium III is just about 1200 points lower than 1.6Ghz Atom)
> >>
> >>e.g.
> >>
> >>openssl speed aes
> >>
> >>Intel Atom
> >>
> >>The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
> >>type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192
> >>bytes
> >>aes-128 cbc 10396.85k 12298.42k 12928.09k 13091.55k
> >>13142.58k
> >>aes-192 cbc 9116.41k 10525.00k 10981.04k 11102.07k
> >>11139.49k
> >>aes-256 cbc 8068.51k 9088.34k 9410.93k 9491.90k
> >>9520.14k
> >>
> >>Pentium III
> >>
> >>The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
> >>type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192
> >>bytes
> >>aes-128 cbc 14980.42k 15963.78k 16222.05k 16329.53k
> >>16919.33k
> >>aes-192 cbc 13102.40k 14225.10k 14473.31k 14457.72k
> >>14487.41k
> >>aes-256 cbc 11976.37k 12662.91k 12850.40k 12842.31k
> >>12945.35k
> >>
> >>Is that an expected result, or is it caused by some wrong
> >>configuration on
> >>my system?
> >
> >They are not fast CPUs. The PIII/Pentium M derived CPUs are much
> >faster clock-for-clock. Don't expect anything like the performance of
> >a 1.4GHz Pentium M from an Atom system.
> >
> >But you are also not using the recommended way to get accurate speed
> >test results.
> >
> >e.g. openssl speed -evp aes256 -elapsed, openssl speed -evp aes128
> >-elapsed
> >http://markmail.org/message/27kslswk4zahitit?q=thread:ngdhgyjfi2bgx3mb
> >
> >Here are examples from some of my systems.
> >
> >type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes
> >8192 bytes
> >
> >hw.model=Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU 230 @ 1.60GHz ("GenuineIntel" 686-class)
> >aes-128-cbc 19038.03k 22711.28k 25477.35k 26380.26k
> >26533.04k
> >aes-256-cbc 12845.55k 17726.87k 18514.90k 18995.34k
> >19078.13k
> >
> >hw.model=Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.80GHz ("GenuineIntel"
> >686-class)
> >*throttled to 600MHz*
> >aes-128-cbc 9899.51k 24677.09k 27413.80k 28302.58k
> >28499.52k
> >aes-256-cbc 14628.60k 18896.27k 19306.85k 20853.67k
> >20903.13k
> >
> >hw.model=Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.80GHz ("GenuineIntel"
> >686-class)
> >aes-128-cbc 29764.09k 58372.77k 76936.57k 84923.22k
> >85870.56k
> >aes-256-cbc 43417.90k 56709.43k 61328.90k 62481.61k
> >62912.43k
> >
> >hw.model=Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz
> >aes-128-cbc 91020.19k 99403.47k 101908.04k 102832.04k
> >102777.22k
> >aes-256-cbc 72070.90k 76275.03k 77913.78k 78081.53k
> >80180.70k
> >
> >hw.model=AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 252
> >aes-128-cbc 103124.01k 113282.39k 117289.34k 118376.37k
> >118693.44k
> >aes-256-cbc 83422.11k 91675.96k 94265.24k 94990.56k
> >95180.43k
> >
> >You'll see interesting results on the Geode LX in the soekris 5501/Alix
> >systems. They have hardware acceleration for aes-128-cbc but not
> >aes-256-cbc.
> >There are setup overheads which aren't related to how much data is
> >encrypted
> >at once, so large block sizes produce much higher rates than small
> >ones (and
> >software does better than hardware for small block sizes).
> >
> >hw.model=Geode(TM) Integrated Processor by AMD PCS ("AuthenticAMD"
> >586-class)
> >
> >sysctl kern.usercrypto=1 (the default):
> >aes-128-cbc [1] 706.55k 2639.08k 8397.03k 18902.58k
> >28729.13k
> >aes-256-cbc [1] 619.83k 1694.13k 2956.24k 3628.23k
> >3943.12k
> >
> >sysctl kern.usercrypto=0:
> >aes-128-cbc [2] 5808.83k 7405.93k 7868.92k 8148.31k
> >8241.87k
> >aes-256-cbc [2] 3990.27k 5351.07k 5948.26k 6035.84k
> >6048.84k
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Openbsd-newbies mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >http://mailman.theapt.org/listinfo/openbsd-newbies
>
_______________________________________________
Openbsd-newbies mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.theapt.org/listinfo/openbsd-newbies
