similar to: dbench & similar - as a valid benchmark

I saw the presentation "Virtualization of Linux Servers" at OLS last month and it had some nice comparisons of Xen performance vs a lot of other virtualization/container technologies: http://ols.fedoraproject.org/OLS/Reprints-2008/camargos-reprint.pdf As always with benchmarks, there are questions to ask and points to quibble, but overall Xen looks quite good... except on Dbench. Has

trying to check gluster performance with dbench I'm using a replica 3 with a bonded dual gigabit (balance-alb) on all servers and shard (64M) enabled. I'm unable to over 3MB (three) MB/s from *inside* VM, thus I think there isn't any small file issue, as from inside VM there isn't any metadata operation for gluster. Any advice ?

how about gluste's own client(s)? You mount volume (locally to the server) via autofs/fstab and watch for inotify on that mountpoing(or path inside it). That is something I expected was out-of-box. On 03/05/18 17:44, Joe Julian wrote: > There is the ability to notify the client already. If you > developed against libgfapi you could do it (I think). > > On May 3, 2018 9:28:43 AM

To test gluster's behavior under heavy load, I'm currently doing this on two machines sharing a common /mnt/gfs gluster mount: ssh bal-6.example.com apt-get install dbench && dbench 6 -t 60 -D /mnt/gfs ssh bal-7.example.com apt-get install dbench && dbench 6 -t 60 -D /mnt/gfs One of the processes usually dies pretty quickly like this: [608] open

I've had the chance to use a testsystem here and couldn't resist running a few benchmark programs on them: bonnie++, tiobench, dbench and a few generic ones (cp/rm/tar/etc...) on ext{234}, btrfs, jfs, ufs, xfs, zfs. All with standard mkfs/mount options and +noatime for all of them. Here are the results, no graphs - sorry: http://nerdbynature.de/benchmarks/v40z/2009-12-22/ Reiserfs

I've had the chance to use a testsystem here and couldn't resist running a few benchmark programs on them: bonnie++, tiobench, dbench and a few generic ones (cp/rm/tar/etc...) on ext{234}, btrfs, jfs, ufs, xfs, zfs. All with standard mkfs/mount options and +noatime for all of them. Here are the results, no graphs - sorry: http://nerdbynature.de/benchmarks/v40z/2009-12-22/ Reiserfs

Hi I'm building new samba server (on Debian 6.0, software RAID10 2TB, Xeon CPU). Generally everything is working fine, so I have decided to run some stress tests. My choice was dbench. Old server is Debian 4.0 (samba 3.0.24, Athlon 3000+, one ATA 160GB disk). So run dbench 16 on both old and new server The results are strange old serwer: about 300MB/sek (dbench 3.0) and below are first

I try to use dbench to test HVM domain. Now I use the parameters as below: #./dbench -c client.txt 64 I am wondering if these parameters make sense. Anyone like to give me some suggestions? Thanks and best regards Alex shi _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Dear all, I know it is as simple as c <- (a + b)/2 to compute the average (element-wise) of two data vectors. However, I can't work out to compute the average when you have many data vectors in a directory. I have done this: ------------------------------------ setwd("/.../data/") listfiles <- list.files(pattern=".pre") # list all datafiles in the directory

Hey, I have installed Ubuntu 8.10 with FV mode. I use this server for web server (command line mode only, no X window) So should I hack my current installation into a PV mode for production use? In fact, any min. performanc gain suppose I should get? (Any bechmark?) Thanks. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com

Hi, I'm getting horrible performance on my samba server, and I am unsure of the cause after reading, benchmarking, and tuning. My server is a K6-500 with 43MB of RAM, standard x86 hardware. The OS is Slackware 10.0 w/ 2.6.7 kernel I've had similar problems with the 2.4.26 kernel. I use samba version 3.0.5. I've listed my partitions below, as well as the drive models. I have a

Здравствуйте, xen-users. Just test domU IO perfomance: sda1 configure via phy:/dev/sdb1. Benchmark with dbench (dbench -D /usr/src -s 10 -t 120) - 102 Mb/s Native sistem (mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt && dbench -D /mnt -s 10 -t 120) - 140 Mb/s How i can speedup dbench? -- С уважением, Vitaliy mailto:vitaliy.okulov@gmail.com

Is there any piece of software that I can use to run between a client and a linux or windows server with a smb/cifs share that will test network speed, latency, sustained read/writes, multiple file create, read, write, close, etc.. etc.. over X period time? I'm testing a Centos server with samba and Windows 2k3/8 servers on the other end of a T1 connection and while I know the T1 bandwidth

Hi, I got problem while using smbtorture with the NBENCH test. The error happens on the "Mkdir" operation. I'm using the file "client.txt" from dbench-3.04. There are "Mkdir" operations, but in the file "torture.c", this operation is not handled. Few other operations are not handled. I did compare operations from run_netbench and those that are present

Have you seen the prototype for googlebenchmark integration I did in the past: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18428 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D18428> (though probably out of date for todays test-suite) +1 for copying the googlebechmark into the test-suite. However I do not think this should simply go into MultiSource: We currently have a number of additional plugins in the lit test runner such

There is the ability to notify the client already. If you developed against libgfapi you could do it (I think). On May 3, 2018 9:28:43 AM PDT, lemonnierk at ulrar.net wrote: >Hey, > >I thought about it a while back, haven't actually done it but I assume >using inotify on the brick should work, at least in replica volumes >(disperse probably wouldn't, you wouldn't get

I'm setting up a new file server and I just can't seem to get the expected performance from ext3. Unfortunately I'm stuck with ext3 due to my use of Lustre. So I'm hoping you dear readers will send me some tips for increasing ext3 performance. The system is using an Areca hardware raid controller with 5 7200RPM SATA disks. The RAID controller has 128MB of cache and the disks

* Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 02:54:59PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: > > Paravirt spinlock clears slowpath flag after doing unlock. > > As explained by Linus currently it does: > > prev = *lock; > > add_smp(&lock->tickets.head, TICKET_LOCK_INC); > > > >

* Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 02:54:59PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: > > Paravirt spinlock clears slowpath flag after doing unlock. > > As explained by Linus currently it does: > > prev = *lock; > > add_smp(&lock->tickets.head, TICKET_LOCK_INC); > > > >

Hi, I've recently benchmarked btrfs v0.11 & v0.12 against ext2, ext3, ext4, jfs, reiserfs and xfs. OS: Ubuntu Hardy Kernel: 2.6.24(-5-server) Hardware: --------- Fu-Si Primergy RX330 S1 * AMD Opteron 2210 1.8 GHz * 1 GB RAM * 3 x 73 GB, 3Gb/s, hot plug, 10k rpm, 3.5" SAS HDD * LSI RAID 128 MB Fu-Si Econel 200 * Intel Xeon 5110 * 512 MB RAM