search for: perforamnce

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-users...

...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 tu...

...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 tu...

...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 s...

...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 s...

...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 sinc...

...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 sinc...