On 2011-05-20 at 14:10, Andrew Deason ( [email protected] ) said:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 13:51:05 -0400 (EDT)
Andy Cobaugh <[email protected]> wrote:
...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.
Well _I_ wasn't talking about memcache. :)
Of course. When I'm talking about performance, I'm almost never talking
about disk cache ;)
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?
I think to some extent it can still be that they're just using the same
hardware resources, so some performance loss is to be expected (if the
network wasn't the bottleneck for separate machines). I'm not sure if
that can explain that degree of difference, though. I believe Rx in the
past has had some odd behavior that really low RTT, but any known fixes
there should have been in 1.6 for awhile.
I expect a similar thing happens on 1.4? Though of course the baseline
performance is probably different, so it's not really comparing the same
thing.
I think there were differences with 1.4, but it's been a while since that
particular machine has run 1.4 that I don't remember exactly.
One would think that a modern 8-core box with 32GB of memory would provide
for enough 'isolation' between server and client. Maybe I just don't know
enough about what resources are involved in that case.
I'm still curious what's actually causing that much of a performance loss.
--andy
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
