search for: perforamnc

Hi How can I turn off readdirp? I saw some solution but they don't work. I tried server side gluster volume vol performance.force-readdirp off gluster volume vol dht.force-readdirp off gluster volume vol perforamnce.read-ahead off and in client side fuse mount mount -t glusterfs server:/vol /mnt -o user.readdirp=no but I can see just readdirp request in server. What shold I do? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-user...

...2017 at 08:06:18PM +0430, Tahereh Fattahi wrote: > Hi > How can I turn off readdirp? > I saw some solution but they don't work. > > I tried server side > gluster volume vol performance.force-readdirp off > gluster volume vol dht.force-readdirp off > gluster volume vol perforamnce.read-ahead off > and in client side fuse mount > mount -t glusterfs server:/vol /mnt -o user.readdirp=no > > but I can see just readdirp request in server. > > What shold I do? Try mounting like this: # mount -t glusterfs server:/vol -o use-readdirp=no /mnt HTH, Niels

I am starting to see a few issues with OCFS and 9.2.0.3 RAC on redHat Linux AS 2.1. Wondering if there is anyone out there experiencing similar issues... a few pointers to the issues.. 1. OCFS read/write performance is way lower than a read/write to a raw device.. i can give you some comparison numbers.. 2. Writes to shared disk with ocfs would get locked up by one server.. it doesnt have to

I am starting to see a few issues with OCFS and 9.2.0.3 RAC on redHat Linux AS 2.1. Wondering if there is anyone out there experiencing similar issues... a few pointers to the issues.. 1. OCFS read/write performance is way lower than a read/write to a raw device.. i can give you some comparison numbers.. 2. Writes to shared disk with ocfs would get locked up by one server.. it doesnt have to

.... Signed-off-by: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad at wizery.com> --- Alternatively, we can also introduce some kind of virtio_mb_ops and set it according to the nature of the vdev with handlers that just do the right thing, instead of introducting that branch. Though I also wonder how big really is the perforamnce gain of d57ed95 ? drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 6 +++ 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c index c7a2c20..cf66a2d 100644 --...

.... Signed-off-by: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad at wizery.com> --- Alternatively, we can also introduce some kind of virtio_mb_ops and set it according to the nature of the vdev with handlers that just do the right thing, instead of introducting that branch. Though I also wonder how big really is the perforamnce gain of d57ed95 ? drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 6 +++ 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c index c7a2c20..cf66a2d 100644 --...

...cket from guest to local/external host. - Current multiqueue based virtio-net/tap introduce a regression of send small packet (512 byte) from guest to local/external host. I suspect it's the issue of queue selection in both guest driver and tap. Would continue to investigate. - I would post the perforamnce numbers as a reply of this mail. TODO: - solve the issue of packet transmission of small packets. - addressing the comments of virtio-net driver - performance tunning Please review and comment it, Thanks. --- Jason Wang (5): tuntap: move socket/sock related structures to tun_file t...

...cket from guest to local/external host. - Current multiqueue based virtio-net/tap introduce a regression of send small packet (512 byte) from guest to local/external host. I suspect it's the issue of queue selection in both guest driver and tap. Would continue to investigate. - I would post the perforamnce numbers as a reply of this mail. TODO: - solve the issue of packet transmission of small packets. - addressing the comments of virtio-net driver - performance tunning Please review and comment it, Thanks. --- Jason Wang (5): tuntap: move socket/sock related structures to tun_file t...

...e by enabling tx interrupts. To minize the performance impacts of this, several optimizations were used: - In guest side, try to use delayed callbacks as much as possible. - In host side, try to use interrupt coalescing for reduce interrupts. About 10% - 15% performance were improved with this. Perforamnce test shows: - Few regression (10% - 15%) were noticed TCP_RR were noticed, this regresssion were not seen in previous version. Still not clear the reason. - CPU utilization is increased in some cases. - All other cases, tx interrupts can perform equal or better than orphaning especially for...

...e by enabling tx interrupts. To minize the performance impacts of this, several optimizations were used: - In guest side, try to use delayed callbacks as much as possible. - In host side, try to use interrupt coalescing for reduce interrupts. About 10% - 15% performance were improved with this. Perforamnce test shows: - Few regression (10% - 15%) were noticed TCP_RR were noticed, this regresssion were not seen in previous version. Still not clear the reason. - CPU utilization is increased in some cases. - All other cases, tx interrupts can perform equal or better than orphaning especially for...

...y enabling tx interrupts. To minize the performance impacts of this, several optimizations were used: - In guest side, try to use delayed callbacks as much as possible. - In host side, try to use interrupt coalescing for reduce tx interrupts. About 10% - 15% performance were improved with this. Perforamnce test shows: - Very few regression (less than 5%) were noticed TCP_RR on 1 vcpu 1 queue guest. - CPU utilization is increased in some cases. - All other cases, tx interrupts can perform equal or better than orphaning (much more obvious when testing small packet transmission as a byproduct sin...

...y enabling tx interrupts. To minize the performance impacts of this, several optimizations were used: - In guest side, try to use delayed callbacks as much as possible. - In host side, try to use interrupt coalescing for reduce tx interrupts. About 10% - 15% performance were improved with this. Perforamnce test shows: - Very few regression (less than 5%) were noticed TCP_RR on 1 vcpu 1 queue guest. - CPU utilization is increased in some cases. - All other cases, tx interrupts can perform equal or better than orphaning (much more obvious when testing small packet transmission as a byproduct sin...