[OpenAFS] namei/inode fileserver performance tests

[Neulinger, Nathan]

Ick. Makes me wonder if it might be worthwhile to try and make a
fileserver/volserver that could hook into reiserfs/reiser4 directly for
it's file store to get good linux performance. (Although namei probably
suffers less of a performance hit on linux filesystems than solaris.

-- Nathan

------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Neulinger                       EMail:  nneul@umr.edu
University of Missouri - Rolla         Phone: (573) 341-4841
Computing Services                       Fax: (573) 341-4216


> -----Original Message-----
> From: chas williams [mailto:chas@cmf.nrl.navy.mil]=20
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 3:38 PM
> To: openafs-info@openafs.org
> Subject: [OpenAFS] namei/inode fileserver performance tests
>=20
>=20
> since people have questioned my results i have run a more 'definitive'
> test.  the test machine was an ultra 60 with two processors.  the
> cache was configured to 150M.  /vicepa (18G) was on a=20
> seperate single disk
> (with respect to the cache).  the test volume was 500M=20
> (although thats probably
> not very relevant).  bonnie++ was run locally (on the=20
> fileserver) to reduce
> variation from network load.
>=20
> testing with bonnie++ (-s 256 -r 128) on an 'inode' fileserver shows:
>=20
> Version 1.02c       ------Sequential Output------=20
> --Sequential Input- --Random-
>                     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr-=20
> --Block-- --Seeks--
> Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP=20
> K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
> nova           256M  1725  26  1676  13  1397  11  2108  25 =20
> 2335   7  19.1   4
>                     ------Sequential Create------=20
> --------Random Create--------
>                     -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create--=20
> --Read--- -Delete--
>               files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP =20
> /sec %CP  /sec %CP
>                  16    71  27   745  90    85  15    72  28  =20
> 522  79   124  15
>=20
> the same test, same machine, substituting a 'namei' fileserver shows:
>=20
> Version 1.02c       ------Sequential Output------=20
> --Sequential Input- --Random-
>                     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr-=20
> --Block-- --Seeks--
> Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP=20
> K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
> nova           256M  1056  16  1218   9   961   8  1805  21 =20
> 1951   5  19.0   4
>                     ------Sequential Create------=20
> --------Random Create--------
>                     -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create--=20
> --Read--- -Delete--
>               files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP =20
> /sec %CP  /sec %CP
>                  16    40  16   739  91    36   6    40  15  =20
> 523  79    27   3
>=20
> so on the first set of tests ("raw" i/o performance) namei is=20
> (on the average)
> 74.3% slower.  no change on seek performance.  for file=20
> operations, only
> create/delete operations seem to suffer -- to the tune of about 50%.
>=20
> [of course, before you ask, is bonnie++ the right benchmark? =20
> if you dont
> like my answers feel free to run your own.]
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-info mailing list
> OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
>=20