geerlingguy
commented
8 months ago First step for bringup was getting the boards working. I plugged them into my original Turing Pi 2 prototype board... which is a bit worse for the wear :)
I couldn't get them to boot, and that old board didn't have PWM fan headers either, so I popped them into my kickstarter "v2.4" board, and they booted and had fans running full blast—but I was told I should upgrade to the 2.0.0 (currently RC1) firmware to get full functionality.
So I initially tried updating over the BMC Web UI, and found that later versions only ship an .img file, not an .swu file, so you have to do one of the more 'advanced' BMC update methods.
I initially tried using PhoenixSuit on my Windows PC, but kept running into all kinds of permissions issues (would not like to work in an ecosystem that requires disabling so many security features, heh...), then was told I can just flash the .img to microSD, boot off it, and get it upgraded that way.
So it was as easy as:
- Flash the 2.0.0-RC1 .img from here to a microSD card with Etcher (if you're reading this later, go get the latest release...)
- Insert the microSD card into the Turing Pi 2's rear microSD card slot.
- Power on the Turing Pi 2 while observing UART through the BMC_UART3 header. (green to RX, white to TX, black to GND on my Adafruit adapter)
- When prompted, type
CONFIRMover UART and press enter, the firmware will upgrade.
After removing the microSD card and rebooting the board, it shows:
_____ _ _ ____ ___ _ _ ____
|_ _| | | | _ \|_ _| \ | |/ ___|
| | | | | | |_) || || \| | | _
| | | |_| | _ < | || |\ | |_| |
|_| \___/|_| \_\___|_| \_|\____|
Welcome to Turing Pi
turingpi login: 2023-11-02T22:04:00.464Z INFO [bmcd] Turing Pi 2 BMC Daemon v2.0.0Yay!
Joshua-Riek
alexellis
ThomasKaiser
AnEvilPenguin
nmaas87
daniel-kukiela
sidick
nyanmisaka
NOTE: These benchmarks are preliminary (run on an early preproduction batch of the board)—I will be re-testing with my production boards soon!
Basic information
Linux/system information
Benchmark results
CPU
Power
(Currently can't measure individual node power consumption.)
stress-ng --matrix 0): TODO Wtop500HPL benchmark: TODO WDisk
Built in eMMC (32GB)
curl https://raw.githubusercontent.com/geerlingguy/pi-cluster/master/benchmarks/disk-benchmark.sh | sudo bashRun benchmark on any attached storage device (e.g. eMMC, microSD, NVMe, SATA) and add results under an additional heading. Download the script with
curl -o disk-benchmark.sh [URL_HERE]and runsudo DEVICE_UNDER_TEST=/dev/sda DEVICE_MOUNT_PATH=/mnt/sda1 ./disk-benchmark.sh(assuming the device issda).Also consider running PiBenchmarks.com script.
Network
iperf3results:iperf3 -c $SERVER_IP: 943 Mbpsiperf3 --reverse -c $SERVER_IP: 927 Mbpsiperf3 --bidir -c $SERVER_IP: 939 Mbps up, 236 Mbps down(Be sure to test all interfaces, noting any that are non-functional.)
GPU
Memory
tinymembenchresults:Click to expand memory benchmark result
``` tinymembench v0.4.10 (simple benchmark for memory throughput and latency) ========================================================================== == Memory bandwidth tests == == == == Note 1: 1MB = 1000000 bytes == == Note 2: Results for 'copy' tests show how many bytes can be == == copied per second (adding together read and writen == == bytes would have provided twice higher numbers) == == Note 3: 2-pass copy means that we are using a small temporary buffer == == to first fetch data into it, and only then write it to the == == destination (source -> L1 cache, L1 cache -> destination) == == Note 4: If sample standard deviation exceeds 0.1%, it is shown in == == brackets == ========================================================================== C copy backwards : 11768.5 MB/s (21.3%) C copy backwards (32 byte blocks) : 11745.9 MB/s C copy backwards (64 byte blocks) : 11746.9 MB/s C copy : 12041.0 MB/s C copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 12222.2 MB/s C copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 12252.1 MB/s C 2-pass copy : 5175.5 MB/s (0.5%) C 2-pass copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 7927.3 MB/s C 2-pass copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 8370.9 MB/s C fill : 30185.7 MB/s (0.4%) C fill (shuffle within 16 byte blocks) : 30183.5 MB/s C fill (shuffle within 32 byte blocks) : 30183.9 MB/s C fill (shuffle within 64 byte blocks) : 30183.6 MB/s NEON 64x2 COPY : 12238.2 MB/s NEON 64x2x4 COPY : 12171.9 MB/s NEON 64x1x4_x2 COPY : 5605.7 MB/s NEON 64x2 COPY prefetch x2 : 11016.5 MB/s NEON 64x2x4 COPY prefetch x1 : 11359.5 MB/s NEON 64x2 COPY prefetch x1 : 11104.4 MB/s NEON 64x2x4 COPY prefetch x1 : 11359.0 MB/s --- standard memcpy : 12208.5 MB/s standard memset : 30184.2 MB/s (0.6%) --- NEON LDP/STP copy : 12232.0 MB/s NEON LDP/STP copy pldl2strm (32 bytes step) : 12201.4 MB/s NEON LDP/STP copy pldl2strm (64 bytes step) : 12224.4 MB/s NEON LDP/STP copy pldl1keep (32 bytes step) : 12251.8 MB/s NEON LDP/STP copy pldl1keep (64 bytes step) : 12247.8 MB/s NEON LD1/ST1 copy : 12175.6 MB/s NEON STP fill : 30185.9 MB/s (0.6%) NEON STNP fill : 30183.7 MB/s ARM LDP/STP copy : 12215.6 MB/s ARM STP fill : 30181.5 MB/s (0.6%) ARM STNP fill : 30182.1 MB/s ========================================================================== == Framebuffer read tests. == == == == Many ARM devices use a part of the system memory as the framebuffer, == == typically mapped as uncached but with write-combining enabled. == == Writes to such framebuffers are quite fast, but reads are much == == slower and very sensitive to the alignment and the selection of == == CPU instructions which are used for accessing memory. == == == == Many x86 systems allocate the framebuffer in the GPU memory, == == accessible for the CPU via a relatively slow PCI-E bus. Moreover, == == PCI-E is asymmetric and handles reads a lot worse than writes. == == == == If uncached framebuffer reads are reasonably fast (at least 100 MB/s == == or preferably >300 MB/s), then using the shadow framebuffer layer == == is not necessary in Xorg DDX drivers, resulting in a nice overall == == performance improvement. For example, the xf86-video-fbturbo DDX == == uses this trick. == ========================================================================== NEON LDP/STP copy (from framebuffer) : 1942.3 MB/s (0.1%) NEON LDP/STP 2-pass copy (from framebuffer) : 1654.2 MB/s NEON LD1/ST1 copy (from framebuffer) : 1941.0 MB/s NEON LD1/ST1 2-pass copy (from framebuffer) : 1661.1 MB/s ARM LDP/STP copy (from framebuffer) : 1875.6 MB/s ARM LDP/STP 2-pass copy (from framebuffer) : 1655.5 MB/s ========================================================================== == Memory latency test == == == == Average time is measured for random memory accesses in the buffers == == of different sizes. The larger is the buffer, the more significant == == are relative contributions of TLB, L1/L2 cache misses and SDRAM == == accesses. For extremely large buffer sizes we are expecting to see == == page table walk with several requests to SDRAM for almost every == == memory access (though 64MiB is not nearly large enough to experience == == this effect to its fullest). == == == == Note 1: All the numbers are representing extra time, which needs to == == be added to L1 cache latency. The cycle timings for L1 cache == == latency can be usually found in the processor documentation. == == Note 2: Dual random read means that we are simultaneously performing == == two independent memory accesses at a time. In the case if == == the memory subsystem can't handle multiple outstanding == == requests, dual random read has the same timings as two == == single reads performed one after another. == ========================================================================== block size : single random read / dual random read 1024 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 2048 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 4096 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 8192 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 16384 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 32768 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 65536 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 131072 : 1.1 ns / 1.5 ns 262144 : 2.3 ns / 2.9 ns 524288 : 4.4 ns / 5.7 ns 1048576 : 10.1 ns / 13.0 ns 2097152 : 14.3 ns / 16.5 ns 4194304 : 62.3 ns / 92.7 ns 8388608 : 101.6 ns / 135.8 ns 16777216 : 97.3 ns / 139.9 ns 33554432 : 151.3 ns / 164.4 ns 67108864 : 141.1 ns / 161.7 ns ```sbc-benchresultssbc-bench results
Phoronix Test Suite
Results from pi-general-benchmark.sh: