On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 12:59:27AM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote: > On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:06:35PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:48:52AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:35:29AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > > > > I might be bumping into the bandwidth of md here - when I ran less > > > > rigorous tests with lower concurrency of extractions I seemed to be > > > > getting marginally better performance (about an effective concurrency > > > > of 2.2 for both 3 and 10 simultaneous extractions - so at least it > > > > doesn't seem to degrade badly). Or this might be reflecting VFS lock > > > > contention (which there is certainly a lot of, according to mutex > > > > profiling traces). > > > > > > I suspect that I am hitting the md bandwidth: > > > > > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/md0 bs=1024k count=500 > > > 500+0 records in > > > 500+0 records out > > > 524288000 bytes transferred in 9.501760 secs (55177988 bytes/sec) > > Wasn't md's blocksize = systems's pagesize, IIRC 8k on sparc. > I'm surprised that 1k even works. 1M block size, not 1K :) Kris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:34 UTC