Alan D. Brunelle wrote:
> I'm seeing some positive results on my 16-way amd64 box (w/ 48 FC disks
> & 48 CCISS disks) - less intrusive blktrace()ing, resulting in more
> benchmark through put for example.
>
> It seems to be pretty valgrind clean (only issue I've seen is in
> inet_ntoa: man page says it uses static storage, but valgrind claims it
> uses malloc - nothing for us to be concerned with).
>
> Anyways, I'm putting this out there whilst I do some more testing to
> verify things.
>
Some good news: doing my previously reported testing on the balanced
configuration completed successfully. (mkfs on large numbers of CCISS
disks, tracing to a large number of FC disks)
What is more, it appears to be a little better in terms of fewer drops &
fewer drop cases - results below are in percent drops:
blktrace:
-b 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
-n |----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
4| 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
8| 1.5 0.0
16| 0.1 0.0
32| 0.8 0.0
64| 1.1
128| 0.8
256| 2.6
512| 2.3
1024| 0.5
2048| 0.1
4096| 0.0
blktrace2:
-b 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
-n |----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
4| 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
8| 0.1 0.0
16| 0.0 0.0
32| 0.0 0.0
64| 0.1
128| 0.1
256| 0.1
512| 0.2
1024| 0.0
2048| 0.0
4096| 0.0
The goal now will be to try and see if I can wiggle out the remaining
0.1 or 0.2% drops...
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrace" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
