Howard Chu wrote:
Howard Chu wrote:
Howard Chu wrote:
Howard Chu wrote:
Well, it doesn't look like this patch caused any harm for the default case.
I'm only seeing about a 10% gain in throughput using two listener threads on a
16 core machine. Not earth-shattering, not bad.
There is a slight drop in throughput for a single listener thread compared to
the pre-patched code. It's around 1%, consistent enough to not be a
measurement error, but not really significant.
Eh. 10% was on a pretty lightly loaded test. On a heavy load the advantage is
only 1.2%. Hardly seems worth the trouble.
At least the advantage always outweighs the above-mentioned 1% loss. I.e.,
cancelling both effects out, we're still ahead overall.
For anyone curious, the slamd reports from these test runs are available on
http://highlandsun.com/hyc/slamd/
Comparing the results, with a single listener thread there are several points
where it is obviously scaling poorly. With two listener threads, those weak
spots in the single listener graphs are gone and everything runs smoothly up
to the peak load.
E.g. comparing single listener
http://highlandsun.com/hyc/slamd/squeeze/singlenew/jobs/optimizing_job_20100807225841-94461048.html
vs double listener
http://highlandsun.com/hyc/slamd/squeeze/double/jobs/optimizing_job_20100808012435-00746454.html
at 56 client threads, the double-listener slapd is 37.6% faster. Dunno why 56
clients is a magic number for the single listener, it jumps up to a more
reasonable throughput at 64 client threads, and the double is only 11.7% faster.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
