On 2011-05-19 at 14:19, Andrew Deason ( [email protected] ) said:
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:57:16 -0400 (EDT)
Andy Cobaugh <[email protected]> wrote:
You can certainly get close if your disk for the disk cache is fast
enough. I've seen close to 80MB/s with 15K SAS under ideal conditions.
Re: client and server on the same machine - I've seen that actually
result in lower performance. When you take the physical network out of
the mix, Rx starts limiting you as a function of CPU usage it seems.
...or it's that you're writing to the same disk twice as much. If the
cache and /vicepX are on the same disk, it seems pretty intuitive that
it's going to be slower.
It was with memcache.
Just ran some quick tests yesterday to confirm what I saw before.
Here I have two different clients, 'mal' and 'badger'. badger has a
fileserver. There is another fileserver, fs8, which serves the purpose of
showing maximum client performance (fs8 is our biggest and fastest
fileserver currently).
Clients on both mal and badger have essentially the same config, using a
655360 byte memcache.
iozone was used in all tests.
client -> server
mal -> fs8:
http://www.bx.psu.edu/~phalenor/afs_performance_results/mal.bx.psu.edu-201105121302/
mal -> badger:
http://www.bx.psu.edu/~phalenor/afs_performance_results/mal.bx.psu.edu-201105191536/
badger -> fs8:
http://www.bx.psu.edu/~phalenor/afs_performance_results/badger.bx.psu.edu-201105191708/
badger -> badger:
http://www.bx.psu.edu/~phalenor/afs_performance_results/badger.bx.psu.edu-201105191618/
mal and badger are slightly different hardware, but the tests above show
that we get very similar performance between all server and client
combinations except the case where client and server are on the same
machine.
Maybe I'm missing something here?
--andy
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
