Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] NFSD: Add support for encoding multiple segments

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

 



On 03/26/2015 12:13 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Anna Schumaker
> <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 03/26/2015 12:06 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Anna Schumaker
>>> <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 03/26/2015 11:38 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:32:25AM -0400, 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, could you describe the setup (are these still kvm's), and how
>>>>> you're clearing the cache between runs?
>>>>
>>>> These are still KVMs and my server is exporting an xfs filesystem.  I clear caches by running "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" on the server before every read, and I remount my client after reading each set of three files once.
>>>
>>> I agree that you have to use the 'drop_caches' interface on the
>>> server, but why not just use O_DIRECT on the clients?
>>
>> I've been reading by using cat from my test shell script: `time cat /nfs/file > /dev/null`.  I can write something to read files with O_DIRECT if that would be more useful!
>>
> 
> 'dd' can do that for you if the appropriate incantations are performed.

Got it.  I'll sacrifice a goat to 'dd' and rerun the tests with O_DIRECT!
> 

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs




[Index of Archives]     [Linux XFS Devel]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux