search for: qps

...l I did some test about MySQL''s Insert performance on ZFS, and met a big performance problem,*i''m not sure what''s the point*. Environment 2 Intel X5560 (8 core), 12GB RAM, 7 slc SSD(Intel). A Java client run 8 threads concurrency insert into one Innodb table: *~600 qps when sync_binlog=1 & innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit=1 ~600 qps when sync_binlog=10 & innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit=1 ~600 qps when sync_binlog=0 & innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit=1 ~900 qps when sync_binlog=1 & innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit=0* ~5500 qps when sync_binlog=10 & i...

...t; > > > Open issues/Todo list: > > List is huge, this is only start point of the project. > > Anyway, here is one example of item in the list: > > - Multi VirtQ: Every QP has two rings and every CQ has one. This means that > > in order to support for example 32K QPs we will need 64K VirtQ. Not sure > > that this is reasonable so one option is to have one for all and > > multiplex the traffic on it. This is not good approach as by design it > > introducing an optional starvation. Another approach would be multi > > queues and rou...

...t; > > > Open issues/Todo list: > > List is huge, this is only start point of the project. > > Anyway, here is one example of item in the list: > > - Multi VirtQ: Every QP has two rings and every CQ has one. This means that > > in order to support for example 32K QPs we will need 64K VirtQ. Not sure > > that this is reasonable so one option is to have one for all and > > multiplex the traffic on it. This is not good approach as by design it > > introducing an optional starvation. Another approach would be multi > > queues and rou...

...> > > > List is huge, this is only start point of the project. > > > > Anyway, here is one example of item in the list: > > > > - Multi VirtQ: Every QP has two rings and every CQ has one. This means that > > > > in order to support for example 32K QPs we will need 64K VirtQ. Not sure > > > > that this is reasonable so one option is to have one for all and > > > > multiplex the traffic on it. This is not good approach as by design it > > > > introducing an optional starvation. Another approach would be...

...;> Open issues/Todo list: >>> List is huge, this is only start point of the project. >>> Anyway, here is one example of item in the list: >>> - Multi VirtQ: Every QP has two rings and every CQ has one. This means that >>> in order to support for example 32K QPs we will need 64K VirtQ. Not sure >>> that this is reasonable so one option is to have one for all and >>> multiplex the traffic on it. This is not good approach as by design it >>> introducing an optional starvation. Another approach would be multi >>>...

The check in vmci_transport_peer_detach_cb should only allow a detach when the qp handle of the transport matches the one in the detach message. Testing: Before this change, a detach from a peer on a different socket would cause an active stream socket to register a detach. Reviewed-by: George Zhang <georgezhang at vmware.com> Signed-off-by: Jorgen Hansen <jhansen at vmware.com> ---

The check in vmci_transport_peer_detach_cb should only allow a detach when the qp handle of the transport matches the one in the detach message. Testing: Before this change, a detach from a peer on a different socket would cause an active stream socket to register a detach. Reviewed-by: George Zhang <georgezhang at vmware.com> Signed-off-by: Jorgen Hansen <jhansen at vmware.com> ---

...> > > > List is huge, this is only start point of the project. > > > > Anyway, here is one example of item in the list: > > > > - Multi VirtQ: Every QP has two rings and every CQ has one. This means that > > > > in order to support for example 32K QPs we will need 64K VirtQ. Not sure > > > > that this is reasonable so one option is to have one for all and > > > > multiplex the traffic on it. This is not good approach as by design it > > > > introducing an optional starvation. Another approach would be...

...> > > > List is huge, this is only start point of the project. > > > > Anyway, here is one example of item in the list: > > > > - Multi VirtQ: Every QP has two rings and every CQ has one. This means that > > > > in order to support for example 32K QPs we will need 64K VirtQ. Not sure > > > > that this is reasonable so one option is to have one for all and > > > > multiplex the traffic on it. This is not good approach as by design it > > > > introducing an optional starvation. Another approach would be...

...t; > > > Open issues/Todo list: > > List is huge, this is only start point of the project. > > Anyway, here is one example of item in the list: > > - Multi VirtQ: Every QP has two rings and every CQ has one. This means that > > in order to support for example 32K QPs we will need 64K VirtQ. Not sure > > that this is reasonable so one option is to have one for all and > > multiplex the traffic on it. This is not good approach as by design it > > introducing an optional starvation. Another approach would be multi > > queues and rou...

...t; > > > Open issues/Todo list: > > List is huge, this is only start point of the project. > > Anyway, here is one example of item in the list: > > - Multi VirtQ: Every QP has two rings and every CQ has one. This means that > > in order to support for example 32K QPs we will need 64K VirtQ. Not sure > > that this is reasonable so one option is to have one for all and > > multiplex the traffic on it. This is not good approach as by design it > > introducing an optional starvation. Another approach would be multi > > queues and rou...

...b a mutex for any queue pair access. In the detach callback for the vmci vsock transport, we call vsock_stream_has_data while holding a spinlock, and vsock_stream_has_data will access a queue pair. To avoid this, we can simply omit calling vsock_stream_has_data for host side queue pairs, since the QPs are empty per default when the guest has detached. This bug affects users of VMware Workstation using kernel version 4.4 and later. Testing: Ran vsock tests between guest and host, and verified that with this change, the host isn't calling vsock_stream_has_data during detach. Ran mixedTest be...

...b a mutex for any queue pair access. In the detach callback for the vmci vsock transport, we call vsock_stream_has_data while holding a spinlock, and vsock_stream_has_data will access a queue pair. To avoid this, we can simply omit calling vsock_stream_has_data for host side queue pairs, since the QPs are empty per default when the guest has detached. This bug affects users of VMware Workstation using kernel version 4.4 and later. Testing: Ran vsock tests between guest and host, and verified that with this change, the host isn't calling vsock_stream_has_data during detach. Ran mixedTest be...

...and the Linux 2.6.20 kernel, I have observed something interesting about Samba and the utilization of multiple CPU cores. On a single Dual Core 3 Ghz Xeon machine, when I am hammering the Samba server with requests from many client machines, a variety of CPU utilization tools like Gkrellm and Qps show that CPU utilization is around 30+ percent on one core and only 1 to 2 percent on the other core. Qps shows that a single user's smbd process sometimes hops from one core to another (which would seem generally undesirable) but all smbd processes mostly spend their time on CPU 0. When...

...i, Please advise how to use Response Rate Limiting on a server which has multiple NSD server processes (nsd.conf server section has server-count > 1). We have a problem with NSD v3.2.16 repeatedly unblocking and blocking again a single source which is flooding positive queries at a ~steady 700 qps rate. rrl-ratelimit setting is the default 200 qps. The unblock-block happens multiple times a minute. This is causing false negatives: NSD bursts out 200 responses on every unblock: Nov 6 10:11:18 dnstest1 nsd[6881]: ratelimit block demo.funet.fi. type positive target 193.166.5.0/24 query 193...

...huge, this is only start point of the project. > > > > > > Anyway, here is one example of item in the list: > > > > > > - Multi VirtQ: Every QP has two rings and every CQ has one. This means that > > > > > > in order to support for example 32K QPs we will need 64K VirtQ. Not sure > > > > > > that this is reasonable so one option is to have one for all and > > > > > > multiplex the traffic on it. This is not good approach as by design it > > > > > > introducing an optional starvation...

...b a mutex for any queue pair access. In the detach callback for the vmci vsock transport, we call vsock_stream_has_data while holding a spinlock, and vsock_stream_has_data will access a queue pair. To avoid this, we can simply omit calling vsock_stream_has_data for host side queue pairs, since the QPs are empty per default when the guest has detached. This bug affects users of VMware Workstation using kernel version 4.4 and later. Testing: Ran vsock tests between guest and host, and verified that with this change, the host isn't calling vsock_stream_has_data during detach. Ran mixedTest be...

...b a mutex for any queue pair access. In the detach callback for the vmci vsock transport, we call vsock_stream_has_data while holding a spinlock, and vsock_stream_has_data will access a queue pair. To avoid this, we can simply omit calling vsock_stream_has_data for host side queue pairs, since the QPs are empty per default when the guest has detached. This bug affects users of VMware Workstation using kernel version 4.4 and later. Testing: Ran vsock tests between guest and host, and verified that with this change, the host isn't calling vsock_stream_has_data during detach. Ran mixedTest be...

...> List is huge, this is only start point of the project. > > > > > Anyway, here is one example of item in the list: > > > > > - Multi VirtQ: Every QP has two rings and every CQ has one. This means that > > > > > in order to support for example 32K QPs we will need 64K VirtQ. Not sure > > > > > that this is reasonable so one option is to have one for all and > > > > > multiplex the traffic on it. This is not good approach as by design it > > > > > introducing an optional starvation. Another ap...

I have two HP dc7800 convertible minitowers that are exhibiting the following issue: every 5-10 minutes, they will "freeze" for about 30 seconds, and then pick right back up again. During the freeze, it seems that nothing at all happens on the system; the clock doesn't even advance (it just picks up again with the next second, and that 30-or-so seconds are lost). I've tried both