Updated Lustre on MX-10G performance results

Hi all,

Using the last code submitted to CFS, I reran the Lustre
echo  
(diskless) tests using MXLND on MX-10G. The updated page is
at:

https:
//mail.clusterfs.com/wikis/lustre/MX-10G

and it has a link to the original results.

As before, MXLND can nearly saturate the wire using a single
client  
for read and write. Using 3 clients slightly increases the
read and  
write performance, but there is not much room for an
increase to  
begin with. 

The big change is the drop in CPU usage. MXLND uses a single
thread  
to handle completions and it can be set to block or poll on 

completions. I tested blocking, polling 5,000 times before
blocking  
and polling 10,000 times before blocking. The blocking
performance  
for metadata was better than the polling results. For
reading and  
writing 1 MB messages, polling added 0.25% throughput but
required  
much more CPU.

Scott

--
Scott Atchley
Myricom Inc.
http://www.myri.com


_______________________________________________
Lustre-devel mailing list
Lustre-develclusterfs.com
https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel

And I failed to update the Getattr 3 client performance. It
is now  
updated.

Scott

On Nov 10, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Scott Atchley wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Using the last code submitted to CFS, I reran the
Lustre echo  
> (diskless) tests using MXLND on MX-10G. The updated
page is at:
>
> https:
//mail.clusterfs.com/wikis/lustre/MX-10G
>
> and it has a link to the original results.
>
> As before, MXLND can nearly saturate the wire using a
single client  
> for read and write. Using 3 clients slightly increases
the read and  
> write performance, but there is not much room for an
increase to  
> begin with. 
>
> The big change is the drop in CPU usage. MXLND uses a
single thread  
> to handle completions and it can be set to block or
poll on  
> completions. I tested blocking, polling 5,000 times
before blocking  
> and polling 10,000 times before blocking. The blocking
performance  
> for metadata was better than the polling results. For
reading and  
> writing 1 MB messages, polling added 0.25% throughput
but required  
> much more CPU.
>
> Scott
>
> --
> Scott Atchley
> Myricom Inc.
> http://www.myri.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-devel mailing list
> Lustre-develclusterfs.com
> https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel

>

_______________________________________________
Lustre-devel mailing list
Lustre-develclusterfs.com
https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel