On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 11:05, Derek Anderson wrote: > I've rerun the simple performance tests originally run by Daniel McNeil with > the addition of the gulm lock manager on the 2.6.8.1 kernel and GFS 6.0 on > the 2.4.21-20.EL kernel. > > Notes: > ====== > Storage: RAID Array Tornado- Model: F4 V2.0 > HBA: QLA2310 > Switch: Brocade Silkworm 3200 > Nodes: Dual Intel Xeon 2.40Ghz > 2GB memory > 100Mbs Ethernet > 2.6.8.1 Kernel/2.4.21-20.EL Kernel (with gfs 6) > GuLM: 3-node cluster, 1 external dedicated lock manager > DLM: 3-node cluster > LVM: Not used > > > tar xvf linux-2.6.8.1.tar: > -------------------------- > real user sys > ext3 tar 0m3.509s 0m0.262s 0m2.471s > ext3 sync 0m1.051s 0m0.001s 0m0.204s > > gfs dlm 1 node tar 0m19.480s 0m0.474s 0m8.975s > gfs dlm 1 node sync 0m3.167s 0m0.000s 0m0.195s > > gfs dlm 2 node tar 0m29.225s 0m0.465s 0m9.670s > gfs dlm 2 node sync 0m3.398s 0m0.000s 0m0.224s > gfs dlm 2 node tar 0m43.355s 0m0.562s 0m10.159s > gfs dlm 2 node sync 0m4.922s 0m0.000s 0m0.226s > > gfs gulm 1 node tar 0m36.568s 0m0.491s 0m7.831s > gfs gulm 1 node sync 0m3.243s 0m0.000s 0m0.152s > > gfs gulm 2 node tar 0m57.271s 0m0.527s 0m8.025s > gfs gulm 2 node sync 0m2.471s 0m0.000s 0m0.145s > gfs gulm 2 node tar 0m40.271s 0m0.482s 0m7.799s > gfs gulm 2 node sync 0m3.636s 0m0.000s 0m0.224s > > gfs 6 gulm 1 node tar 0m32.671s 0m0.480s 0m7.480s > gfs 6 gulm 1 node sync 0m3.436s 0m0.000s 0m0.120s > > gfs 6 gulm 2 node tar 0m38.130s 0m0.440s 0m6.920s > gfs 6 gulm 2 node sync 0m3.731s 0m0.000s 0m0.110s > gfs 6 gulm 2 node tar 0m58.564s 0m0.500s 0m6.670s > gfs 6 gulm 2 node sync 0m0.971s 0m0.000s 0m0.070s > > du -s linux-2.6.8.1 (after untar): > ---------------------------------- > real user sys > ext3 0m0.103s 0m0.018s 0m0.055s > > gfs dlm 1 node 0m5.149s 0m0.041s 0m1.905s > > gfs dlm 2 node 0m11.127s 0m0.045s 0m1.839s > gfs dlm 2 node 0m8.883s 0m0.033s 0m1.904s > > gfs gulm 1 node 0m0.355s 0m0.025s 0m0.330s > > gfs gulm 2 node 0m0.358s 0m0.024s 0m0.334s > gfs gulm 2 node 0m0.358s 0m0.020s 0m0.338s > > gfs 6 gulm 1 node 0m0.314s 0m0.010s 0m0.290s > > gfs 6 gulm 2 node 0m0.308s 0m0.050s 0m0.250s > gfs 6 gulm 2 node 0m0.303s 0m0.000s 0m0.310s > > Second du -s linux-2.6.8.1: > --------------------------- > real user sys > ext3 0m0.074s 0m0.025s 0m0.049s > > gfs dlm 1 node 0m0.341s 0m0.027s 0m0.314s > > gfs dlm 2 node 0m0.325s 0m0.024s 0m0.300s > gfs dlm 2 node 0m0.324s 0m0.020s 0m0.304s > > gfs gulm 1 node 0m0.354s 0m0.022s 0m0.332s > > gfs gulm 2 node 0m0.357s 0m0.023s 0m0.334s > gfs gulm 2 node 0m0.359s 0m0.021s 0m0.338s > > gfs 6 gulm 1 node 0m0.299s 0m0.020s 0m0.280s > > gfs 6 gulm 2 node 0m0.299s 0m0.000s 0m0.300s > gfs 6 gulm 2 node 0m0.302s 0m0.010s 0m0.290s > > rm -rf linux-2.6.8.1: > --------------------- > real user sys > ext3 0m0.695s 0m0.013s 0m0.646s > > gfs dlm 1 node 0m10.056s 0m0.038s 0m4.720s > > gfs dlm 2 node 0m12.032s 0m0.043s 0m4.789s > gfs dlm 2 node 0m13.803s 0m0.052s 0m4.787s > > gfs gulm 1 node 0m14.152s 0m0.066s 0m3.409s > > gfs gulm 2 node 0m12.408s 0m0.039s 0m2.355s > gfs gulm 2 node 0m14.216s 0m0.038s 0m2.560s > > gfs 6 gulm 1 node 4m30.759s 0m0.140s 0m3.890s > > gfs 6 gulm 2 node 4m42.095s 0m0.060s 0m5.580s > gfs 6 gulm 2 node 4m49.479s 0m0.140s 0m4.450s > What kind of raid setup is this (raid type, stripe size, etc)? You are seeing some decent scaling, where I am not. You have much faster processors. Is the DLM code cpu intensive? Daniel
