From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Nelson Subject: Initial performance cluster SimpleMessenger vs AsyncMessenger results Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:50:43 -0500 Message-ID: <561BE4E3.7050404@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60251 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751101AbbJLQup (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:50:45 -0400 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: ceph-devel Cc: "ceph-users@lists.ceph.com" Hi Guy, Given all of the recent data on how different memory allocator configurations improve SimpleMessenger performance (and the effect of memory allocators and transparent hugepages on RSS memory usage), I thought I'd run some tests looking how AsyncMessenger does in comparison. We spoke about these a bit at the last performance meeting but here's the full write up. The rough conclusion as of right now appears to be: 1) AsyncMessenger performance is not dependent on the memory allocator like with SimpleMessenger. 2) AsyncMessenger is faster than SimpleMessenger with TCMalloc + 32MB (ie default) thread cache. 3) AsyncMessenger is consistently faster than SimpleMessenger for 128K random reads. 4) AsyncMessenger is sometimes slower than SimpleMessenger when memory allocator optimizations are used. 5) AsyncMessenger currently uses far more RSS memory than SimpleMessenger. Here's a link to the paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gTBZrkrnpZS1Q4VktjZkhrNHc/view Mark