Hi Wendy, IOZONE v3.283 was used to generate the results I posted. An example invocation line [for the IOPS result]: ./iozone -O -l 1 -u 8 -T -b /root/iozone_IOPS_1_TO_8_THREAD_1_DISK_ISCSI_DIRECT.xls -F /mnt/iscsi_direct1/iozone/iozone1.tmp ... It's for 1 to 8 threads, and I provided 8 file names through I'm only showing one in the line above. The file destinations were on the same disk for a single disk test, and on alternating disks for a 2-disk test. I believe IOZONE uses a simple random string, repeated in certain default record sizes, when performing its various operations. - K -----Original Message----- From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wendy Cheng Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 12:01 PM To: linux clustering Subject: Re: GFS performance Kamal Jain wrote: > A challenge we're dealing with is a massive number of small files, so > there is a lot of file-level overhead, and as you saw in the > charts...the random reads and writes were not friends of GFS. > It is expected that GFS2 would do better in this area butt this does *not* imply GFS(1) is not fixable. One thing would be helpful is sending us the benchmark (or test program that can reasonably represent your application IO patterns) you used to generate the performance data. Then we'll see what can be done from there .... -- Wendy -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
