The hit is mainly for things that do context switches (which IO is the biggest thing in.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Arman Khalatyan <arm2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, We did some tests with the new lustre clients(no patch on servers) > I can confirm like Marek: maximum downgrade is about 40% by rsync with > small files, lfs find on large folders 45% performance penalty:( > We found terrible performance on the test system with > zfs+compression+lustre. > Good news: the compute node flops are about 1% or even none. So only > IO intensive applications are impacted. > > Cheers, > Arman. > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Marek Magryś <m.mag...@cyfronet.pl> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > >> I wonder if any performance impacts on lustre with the new security > >> patches for the Intel? > > > > According to our initial tests on 3.10.0-693.11.6.el7.x86_64 kernel > > (Centos 7.4) with Lustre 2.10.2, there is a penalty of ca. 10% in nice > > workloads (1MB IO) up to 40% in 4k IOs. Tested with IOR. > > > > It looks bad, however probably we don't need to patch the servers, as > > Lustre lives in kernelspace anyway. Some kind of advisory from Intel > > HPDD would be nice here. > > > > Cheers, > > Marek > > > > -- > > Marek Magrys > > ACC Cyfronet AGH-UST > > _______________________________________________ > > lustre-discuss mailing list > > lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org > > http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org > _______________________________________________ > lustre-discuss mailing list > lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org > http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org >
_______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org