On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:29:05AM +0900, Ammar Ahmad Awan wrote: > The problem is that when I give the full path ( with and without > pvfs2: prefix ) the results are same and seem to make sense as I am > not on a very fast hardware at all. I am just using a Linux VM on a > Windows Desktop with some 1TB normal hard-drive.
Start with 'simple' -- it has more error checking. It sounds like perf is failing at some point, so you get the crazy high numbers. Then there's 'coll_perf'. that also has better error reporting. > I am not sure how the performance on local file system is better than > pvfs2. Secondly, shall i even expect correct results when I am running > the two processes on the same machine? another explanation might be local caching. The timing in those benchmarks is only around the write calls I think. Timing around open/close might give the un-cached result. ==rob -- Rob Latham Mathematics and Computer Science Division Argonne National Lab, IL USA _______________________________________________ Pvfs2-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-users
