[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: performance of filesystem xattrs with Samba4

    > Would you be willing to do some variation on it that scaled itself to
    > the size of the machine, and generated disk load rather than fitting in ram?

    You can do that now by varying the number of simulated clients, or by
    varying the load file.

    > I hope you understand my reluctance to optimize for tests that fit into
    > ram.....

    to some extent, yes, but "in memory" tests are actually pretty
    important for file serving.

    In a typical large office environment with one or two thousand users
    you will only have between 20 and 100 of those users really actively
    using the file server at any one time. The others are taking a nap, in
    meetings or staring out the window. Or maybe (being generous), they
    are all working furiously with cached data. I haven't actually gone
    into the cubes to check - I just see the server side stats.

    Of those that are active, they rarely have a working set size of over
    100MB, and usually much less, so it is not uncommon for the whole
    workload over a period of 5 minutes to fit in memory on typical file
    servers. This is especially so on the modern big file servers that
    might have 16G of ram or more, with modern clients that do agressive
    lease based caching.

    There are exceptions of course. Big print shops, rendering farms and
    high performance computing sites are all examples of sites that have
    active working sets much larger than typical system memory.

    The point is that you need to test a wide range of working set
    sizes. You also might like to notice that in the published commercial
    NetBench runs paid for by the big players (like Microsoft, NetApp, EMC
    etc), you tend to find that the graph only extends to a number of
    clients equal to the total machine memory divided by 25MB. That is
    perhaps not a coincidence given that the working set size per client
    of NetBench is about 22MB. The people who pay for the benchmarks want
    their customers to see a graph that doesn't have a big cliff at the
    right hand side.

    Also, with journaled filesystems running in-memory benchmarks isn't as
    silly as it first seems, as there are in fact big differences between
    how the filesystems cope. It isn't just a memory bandwidth
    test. Windows clients do huge numbers of meta-data operations, and
    nearly all of those cause journal writes which hit the metal.

    So while I sympathise with you wanting reiser4 to be tuned for "big"
    storage, please remember that a good proportion of the installs are
    likely to be running "in-memory" workloads.

    Cheers, Tridge
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.020 / U:23.060 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site