From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Barton <eeb@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:33:17 +0000
Subject: [Lustre-devel] statahead_performance.pdf - Adobe Reader
In-Reply-To: <49B544FA.9020009@sun.com>
References: <070201c9a0c4$d6fe8b50$84fba1f0$@com> <49B544FA.9020009@sun.com>
Message-ID: <002901c9a0dd$22249850$666dc8f0$@com>
List-Id: <lustre-devel-lustre.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org

Fan Yong,

I don't think the factor of ~2 can be explained simply by node
performance.  But why debate the point when it will be simpler
to repeat the measurements (i.e. repeating the tests exactly
with the same parameters e.g. # dirents) using 1GigE on the
same nodes that were used to measure IB.

    Cheers,
              Eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yong.Fan at Sun.COM [mailto:Yong.Fan at Sun.COM]
> Sent: 09 March 2009 4:34 PM
> To: Eric Barton
> Cc: lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
> Subject: Re: statahead_performance.pdf - Adobe Reader
> 
> Eric Barton ??:
> > Fan Yong,
> >
> > The attached PDF shows the results you gathered in a form
> > that makes it easier to understand the results and helps
> > comparison.  Please could you review it for correctness.
> >
> >
> Yes, it is much help to understand the performance improvement
> by statahead with the chart.
> 
> But I think the first chart for "Statahead Dirents/second" maybe
> some misguide, since the TCP result and IB result are from different
> hardware environment (I mean the CPU and memory), that the speed
> of stating under IB is faster than TCP case is meaningless.
> 
> Relatively, the second chart for "Statahead Speedup" is more useful,
> which is relatively independent from hardware (CPU and memory).
> It gives the trend of upper bound on performance improvement from
> statahead under different network configure, and different dir/file ratio.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> --
> Fan Yong
> >     Cheers,
> >               Eric
> >
> >