linux-kernel - Re: fuse scalability part 1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJfpegsgjV2ePkdjZDAi5GoJ5M-Zeoy10v-5p+bzyHVAnGQpuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:11:31 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	Ashish Samant <ashish.samant@...cle.com>
Cc:	Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Srinivas Eeda <srinivas.eeda@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: fuse scalability part 1

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Ashish Samant <ashish.samant@...cle.com> wrote:

> We did some performance testing without these patches and with these patches
> (with -o clone_fd  option specified). We did 2 types of tests:
>
> 1. Throughput test : We did some parallel dd tests to read/write to FUSE
> based database fs on a system with 8 numa nodes and 288 cpus. The
> performance here is almost equal to the the per-numa patches we submitted a
> while back.Please find results attached.

Interesting.  This means, that serving the request on a different NUMA
node as the one where the request originated doesn't appear to make
the performance much worse.

Thanks,
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/