Re: Multiplexing - good news, bad news, and a plea for help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Jeff Darcy <jdarcy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> FWIW, I did some further experiments.  Disabling mem-pool entirely (in favor of plain malloc/free) brought run time down to 3:35, vs. 2:57 for the exact same thing without multiplexing.  Somehow we're still not managing contention very well at this kind of thread count, but the clues and opportunities are becoming less obvious.

I wonder if we are spending more time in io-threads. Does setting
idle-time in io-threads to 1 help with anything?
It might be useful to add instrumentation subsequently to dump
statistics (number of fops serviced, time spent in servicing) per
thread. Having the same visibility for our epoll threads would also be
useful.

 I think the answer is no - but does profiling yield anything useful
at this point?

-Vijay
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel



[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Users]     [Ceph Users]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux