On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Here is the result. >> I've measured the through-put with some cases on my virtual machine. >> Each client loads 48k file to each different relations located on >> either xfs filesystem or ext4 filesystem, for 30 sec. >> >> Case 1: COPYs to relations on different filessystems(xfs and ext4) and >> N_RELEXTLOCK_ENTS is 1024 >> >> clients = 2, avg = 296.2068 >> clients = 5, avg = 372.0707 >> clients = 10, avg = 389.8850 >> clients = 50, avg = 428.8050 >> >> Case 2: COPYs to relations on different filessystems(xfs and ext4) and >> N_RELEXTLOCK_ENTS is 1 >> >> clients = 2, avg = 294.3633 >> clients = 5, avg = 358.9364 >> clients = 10, avg = 383.6945 >> clients = 50, avg = 424.3687 >> >> And the result of current HEAD is following. >> >> clients = 2, avg = 284.9976 >> clients = 5, avg = 356.1726 >> clients = 10, avg = 375.9856 >> clients = 50, avg = 429.5745 >> >> In case2, the through-put got decreased compare to case 1 but it seems >> to be almost same as current HEAD. Because the speed of acquiring and >> releasing extension lock got x10 faster than current HEAD as I >> mentioned before, the performance degradation may not have gotten >> decreased than I expected even in case 2. >> Since my machine doesn't have enough resources the result of clients = >> 50 might not be a valid result. > > I have to admit that result is surprising to me. >
I think the environment I used for performance measurement did not have enough resources. I will do the same benchmark on an another environment to see if it was a valid result, and will share it. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
