I was checking around internally and was told that on least our systems there
are 2 different interfaces and so look at this:
[r...@hpc01p001 ~]# time for i in `seq 1 10`; do ipmitool -d 0 -S /tmp/xxx sdr
>/dev/null; done
real 0m18.793s
user 0m0.007s
sys 0m0.019s
[r...@hpc01p001 ~]# time for i in `seq 1 100`; do ipmitool -d 1 -S /tmp/xxx sdr
>/dev/null; done
real 0m2.779s
user 0m0.043s
sys 0m0.142s
note in the second case I’m doing 10 times more intereractions and it’s still
completing in almost a 10th of the time. This is with V1.8.10.
-mark
From: John Philips [mailto:johnphilip...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 1:12 PM
To: Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Seger, Mark
Subject: RE: [Ipmitool-devel] performance questions
Ok, must be something specific to Dell hardware, then. All our servers are
Dells of varying models. ipmitool sdr runs fine w/1.8.9, slow as molaasses
w/1.8.11
--- On Fri, 3/26/10, Seger, Mark <mark.se...@hp.com> wrote:
From: Seger, Mark <mark.se...@hp.com>
Subject: RE: [Ipmitool-devel] performance questions
To: "John Philips" <johnphilip...@yahoo.com>,
"Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" <Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Date: Friday, March 26, 2010, 9:53 AM
I tried both w/ and w/o cache. In both cases the runtime for 10 iterations
were about 20 seconds. The same as the latest version.
-mark
From: John Philips [mailto:johnphilip...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:53 AM
To: Seger, Mark; Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [Ipmitool-devel] performance questions
Mark,
Try it again without the cache and see if there's any difference. I've never
used the cache feature before.
--- On Fri, 3/26/10, Seger, Mark <mark.se...@hp.com> wrote:
From: Seger, Mark <mark.se...@hp.com>
Subject: RE: [Ipmitool-devel] performance questions
To: "Seger, Mark" <mark.se...@hp.com>, "John Philips"
<johnphilip...@yahoo.com>, "Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net"
<Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Date: Friday, March 26, 2010, 7:32 AM
No difference w/ 1.8.9:
before
[r...@hpdc3d001 tmp]# time for i in `seq 1 10`; do ipmitool -S xxx sdr
>/dev/null; done
real 0m19.511s
user 0m0.006s
sys 0m0.012s
after
[r...@hpdc3d001 ipmitool-1.8.9]# ipmitool -V
ipmitool version 1.8.9
[r...@hpdc3d001 ipmitool-1.8.9]# time for i in `seq 1 10`; do ipmitool -S xxx
sdr >/dev/null; done
real 0m19.212s
user 0m0.005s
sys 0m0.008s
From: Seger, Mark
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:15 AM
To: John Philips; Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Ipmitool-devel] performance questions
From: John Philips [mailto:johnphilip...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 9:57 AM
To: Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Ipmitool-devel] performance questions
I'm seeing the same problem. My systems are Dell PowerEdge servers running
Gentoo. When using ipmitool 1.8.9, the sdr displays everything in under a
minute. After upgrading to 1.8.11, it takes over 3 minutes. If I downgrade
back to 1.8.9 the problem goes away, so clearly it's caused by something within
ipmitool.
[mjs] - interesting. I’m right in the middle at 1.8.10, so maybe the problem
(if it is with ipmitool) was introduced there? I’ll have to see if I can get a
copy of 1.8.9, try it and report back.
--- On Thu, 3/25/10, Seger, Mark <mark.se...@hp.com> wrote:
From: Seger, Mark <mark.se...@hp.com>
Subject: [Ipmitool-devel] performance questions
To: "Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net"
<Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 5:01 AM
I’ve been using ipmitool inside my collectl monitoring tool for some time now
and it’s been fairly efficient, thanks to some optimizations from this mailing
list. However I’ve recently noticed it’s gotten much slower and I don’t know
if something has changed OR if it’s the actual hardware architecture that’s
doing this.
Specifically I’m running 1.8.10
Before running it I do:
ipmitool sdr dump xxx
followed by
ipmitool –S xxx sdr
while it’s using very little cpu time, it IS using a lot of elapsed time which
makes me wonder if it is something about the system configuration. I do know
for a fact that when I first started using it with the cache, the cache I was
able to get the runtimes much lower.
My reason for asking is I do a mix of monitoring activities with collectl and
gather the ipmi data only every couple of minutes, but I something use a
monitoring interval of 1 second for the other data and the slowness of ipmitool
prevents this. If it is what it is, so be it but I just want to make sure it’s
not me.
-mark
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Ipmitool-devel mailing list
Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipmitool-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Ipmitool-devel mailing list
Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipmitool-devel
