From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:51:40 +0200 From: Lars Ellenberg To: drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com Subject: Re: [Drbd-dev] switching between protocols A and C Message-ID: <20070411145140.GA4659@barkeeper1.linbit> References: <461CD0EC.4040402@dcs.gla.ac.uk> <20070411125716.GC27110@barkeeper1.linbit> <461CE69A.5020604@dcs.gla.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <461CE69A.5020604@dcs.gla.ac.uk> List-Id: Coordination of development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 02:46:02PM +0100, Cristian Zamfir wrote: > Lars Ellenberg wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:13:32PM +0100, Cristian Zamfir wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>Would it be possible to switch from protocol A to C and vice versa > >>without disconnecting (for instance detach, switch protocol and > >>re-attach)? > >> > >>This would be useful when alternating between two primaries (only > >>protocol C can be used) and a primary/secondary configuration where > >>protocol A may increase write throughput on the primary node. > > > >protocol A does _NOT_ increase throughput at all. > >it _MAY_ reduce latency somewhat sometimes. > > I am testing with the bonnie++ benchmark over a 100Mbps link and I get a > substantial increase for output in the case of protocol A at the expense > of higher CPU ratio. From what I understand, it would make sense to get > better throughput from the asynchronous protocol over low quality links. > Or am I doing something wrong? and your exact bonnie++ command line is: -- : Lars Ellenberg Tel +43-1-8178292-0 : : LINBIT Information Technologies GmbH Fax +43-1-8178292-82 : : Vivenotgasse 48, A-1120 Vienna/Europe http://www.linbit.com : __ please use the "List-Reply" function of your email client.