Re: A quick fio test (was Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3)

[Avi Kivity <avi@argo.co.il>]

Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> I tried the latest fio code with syslet v4, and my results are a little
> different - have yet to figure out why or what to make of it.
> I hope I have all the right pieces now.
>
> This is an ext2 filesystem, SCSI AIC7xxx.
>
> I used an iodepth_batch size of 8 to limit the number of ios in a single
> io_submit (thanks for adding that parameter to fio !), like we did in
> aio-stress.
>
> Engine          Depth      Batch	Bw (KiB/sec)
> ----------------------------------------------------
> libaio		64	   8		17,226
> syslet		64	   8		17,620
> libaio		20000	   8		18,552
> syslet		20000	   8		14,935
>
>
> Which is not bad, actually.
>
> If I do not specify the iodepth_batch (i.e. default to depth), then the
> difference becomes more pronounced at higher depths. However, I doubt
> whether anyone would be using such high batch sizes in practice ...
>
> Engine          Depth      Batch	Bw (KiB/sec)
> ----------------------------------------------------
> libaio		64	   default	17,429
> syslet		64	   default	16,155
> libaio		20000	   default	15,494
> syslet		20000	   default	7,971
>   

But what about cpu usage?  At these low levels, the cpu is probably 
underutilized.  It would be interesting to measure cpu time per I/O 
request (or, alternatively, use an I/O subsystem that can saturate the 
processors).


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function