On 4 Apr 2011, at 22:18, Garrett Wollman wrote: > Over the past few days I have performed several benchmarks comparing > the performance of various OpenAFS server and client configurations.
Thanks for this - it makes for really interesting reading. The statistic I'm really interested in at present, unfortunately, isn't one that you cover. With the imminent release of 1.6.0, what would be really interesting to know is a direct comparison between 1.4.14 and 1.6.0 on the same hardware, for the same workload. I know of workloads in which I can clearly show that 1.6.0 is faster, what would be really useful is to see, and to understand, is workloads for which it is slower. You also mention the performance penalties of fcrypt. One of the interesting anomalies of both DES and fcrypt is that as well as being weaker than AES, they are also slower. RX using rxgk is significantly faster than rx with rxkad. AES is also far more amenable to acceleration, allowing the crypto overhead to be transferred to external processors. We obviously still have a lot of performance improvements to investigate in both the fileserver and in RX. Lock contention in RX is a significant problem, over and above the condition variable inefficiencies. I did some work on this last autumn for YFS, some of which is now in 1.6.x, some of which is only in master, and some of which is still to be committed. Cheers, Simon. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
