On 03/26/2015 11:32 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Anna Schumaker > <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Here are my updated numbers! I tested with files 5G in size: one 100% data, one 100% hole, and one alternating between hole and data every 4K. I collected data for both v4.1 and v4.2 with and without the READ_PLUS patches: >> >> ########################## >> # # >> # Without READ_PLUS # >> # # >> ########################## >> >> >> NFS v4.1: >> Trial >> |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| >> | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Average | >> |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| >> | Data | 8.723s | 7.243s | 8.252s | 6.997s | 6.980s | 7.639s | >> | Hole | 5.271s | 5.224s | 5.060s | 4.897s | 5.321s | 5.155s | >> | Mixed | 8.050s | 10.057s | 7.919s | 8.060s | 9.557s | 8.729s | >> |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| >> >> >> >> >> NFS v4.2: >> Trial >> |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| >> | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Average | >> |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| >> | Data | 6.707s | 7.070s | 6.722s | 6.761s | 6.810s | 6.814s | >> | Hole | 5.152s | 5.149s | 5.213s | 5.206s | 5.312s | 5.206s | >> | Mixed | 7.979s | 7.985s | 8.177s | 7.772s | 8.280s | 8.039s | >> |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| >> >> >> >> >> >> ####################### >> # # >> # With READ_PLUS # >> # # >> ####################### >> >> >> NFS v4.1: >> Trial >> |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| >> | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Average | >> |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| >> | Data | 9.082s | 7.008s | 7.116s | 6.771s | 7.902s | 7.576s | >> | Hole | 5.333s | 5.358s | 5.380s | 5.161s | 5.282s | 5.303s | >> | Mixed | 8.189s | 8.308s | 9.540s | 7.937s | 8.420s | 8.479s | >> |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| >> >> >> >> >> NFS v4.2: >> Trial >> |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| >> | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Average | >> |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| >> | Data | 7.033s | 6.829s | 7.025s | 6.873s | 7.134s | 6.979s | >> | Hole | 1.794s | 1.800s | 1.905s | 1.811s | 1.725s | 1.807s | >> | Mixed | 7.590s | 8.777s | 9.423s | 10.366s | 8.024s | 8.836s | >> |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| >> > > So there is a clear win in the 100% hole case here, but otherwise the > statistical fluctuations are dominating the numbers. Can you get us a > little more stats and then perhaps run the results through nfsometer? Sure! Do you want any information besides runtime? Anna > >> >> >> On 03/24/2015 01:49 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 08:43:31AM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote: >>>>> I don't know, and don't have profiles. I'll either try to reproduce or >>>>> wait till Anna's back from vacation. >>>> >>>> I'm using whatever functions NFSD already uses for reading files, >>>> which I expect go through the VFS. Is there a flag that controls >>>> cache behavior? >>> >>> There's the O_DIRECT flag, but that's not what I mean. If you just >>> wrote to it it's a cached read, if you did unmount the filesystem after >>> writing, or did an echo to /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches you get uncached >>> read behavior. >>> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
