From: Yong Fan <Yong.Fan@Sun.COM>
To: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org
Subject: [Lustre-devel] statahead_performance.pdf - Adobe Reader
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:28:46 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49B632CE.4040500@sun.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <002901c9a0dd$22249850$666dc8f0$@com>
Sorry, some test resources budgeting limit delayed the test
a little. This is the last test result:
TCP2, IB and Routed IB were tested on the same cluster
with the same scale. TPC1 was tested on another cluster.
Regards,
--
Fan Yong
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: statahead_performance.ods
Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet
Size: 32448 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-devel-lustre.org/attachments/20090310/633988a7/attachment.ods>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-10 9:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-09 14:39 [Lustre-devel] statahead_performance.pdf - Adobe Reader Eric Barton
2009-03-09 16:34 ` Yong Fan
2009-03-09 17:33 ` Eric Barton
2009-03-10 9:28 ` Yong Fan [this message]
2009-03-10 19:07 ` [Lustre-devel] statahead_performance.pdf Andreas Dilger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49B632CE.4040500@sun.com \
--to=yong.fan@sun.com \
--cc=lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox