On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:28:54AM -0500, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Troy Benjegerdes writes: > >I just switched to a 100mb cache, (previously it was 1GB), and ran afsd > >with "afsd -memcache -chunksize 16", and now I'm getting a better, but > >not optimal throughput of around 25MB/sec. > > > >(Out of curiosity, what cache sizes do people generally run at?) > > generally speaking memcache is going to be faster. if you have a > good link to the fileservers (and network traffic doesnt bother > you) then memcache is going to be the way to go. > > increasing chunksize is always going to help with larger files. if i > had to guess, i would say afs (fileserver/cache manager) was tuned to > handle a huge number of tiny files. since performance on tiny files > is always dominated by system overhead, the fileserver's performance > 'problems' aren't a big deal. however, when it comes to large files > you start to see trouble.
Yes, chunksize seems to be a big deal. I'm up to about 25-30MB/sec with -chunksize 20 Now, if I could only umount /afs without a kernel panic, I'd probably write myself a nice script to run benchmarks with a bunch of different chunk sizes. ;) _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
