From: John Philips [mailto:johnphilip...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 3:23 PM
To: Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Seger, Mark
Subject: RE: [Ipmitool-devel] performance questions
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, 11:01 AM
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
That's interesting, but are you sure you're even getting valid results in the
second case? Docs say that '-d' refers to the device number, i.e. /dev/ipmi0.
Perhaps it runs so quickly because /dev/ipmi1 doesn't exist and the command
just issues an error.
yes, it’s definitely a valid number
-mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
