Hi Haomai,
Great! I haven't had a chance to dig in and look at it with valgrind
yet, but if I get a chance after I'm done with newstore fragment testing
and somnath's writepath work I'll try to go back and dig in if you
haven't had a chance yet.
Mark
On 10/12/2015 09:56 PM, Haomai Wang wrote:
resend
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Haomai Wang <haomaiw...@gmail.com> wrote:
COOL
Interesting that async messenger will consume more memory than simple, in my
mind I always think async should use less memory. I will give a look at this
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Mark Nelson <mnel...@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Guy,
Given all of the recent data on how different memory allocator
configurations improve SimpleMessenger performance (and the effect of memory
allocators and transparent hugepages on RSS memory usage), I thought I'd run
some tests looking how AsyncMessenger does in comparison. We spoke about
these a bit at the last performance meeting but here's the full write up.
The rough conclusion as of right now appears to be:
1) AsyncMessenger performance is not dependent on the memory allocator
like with SimpleMessenger.
2) AsyncMessenger is faster than SimpleMessenger with TCMalloc + 32MB (ie
default) thread cache.
3) AsyncMessenger is consistently faster than SimpleMessenger for 128K
random reads.
4) AsyncMessenger is sometimes slower than SimpleMessenger when memory
allocator optimizations are used.
5) AsyncMessenger currently uses far more RSS memory than SimpleMessenger.
Here's a link to the paper:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gTBZrkrnpZS1Q4VktjZkhrNHc/view
Mark
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
--
Best Regards,
Wheat
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
