On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:16:44PM +0200, Torbjřrn Thorsen wrote: > With this setup, I get the same ~70 MB/s I have been fighting with for > a while now. > It seems curious to me that I get ~70 MB/s seemingly no matter what changes > I do to the the configuration, so I'm beginning to suspect my testing > method is broken.
Try ext2. More advanced file systems need to sync from time to time to ensure your data is safe. Since the AoE protocol does not support barriers, and AFAIK support for the FLUSH ATA command was never implemented, the client kernel can do just one thing: stop sending new commands, wait until all pending commands finish, and really-really hope that the server did commit the data to disk, even if it got no indication to do so. This means that most file system operations (esp. those involving metadata) will insert "gaps" into the data stream. So when you're using a file system, you will never be able to reach the performance of the raw device, or the network. If you have many clients, then the fact that one of them can't saturate the server is probably not that important. If the performance of a single client is important, then try iSCSI. Gabor ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 _______________________________________________ Aoetools-discuss mailing list Aoetools-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/aoetools-discuss
