On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Mark Nelson <mnelson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 Can you clarify these tests a bit more? I can't make the number of nodes, OSDs, and SSDs work out properly. Were the FIO jobs 256 concurrent ops per job, or in aggregate? Is there any more info that might suggest why the 128KB rand-read (but not read nor write, and not 4k rand-read) was so asymmetrical? _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |