[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: spread-users
Subject: Re[2]: [Spread-users] spread performance looks not very good for me
From: Yair Amir <yairamir () cnds ! jhu ! edu>
Date: 2003-12-06 2:58:41
[Download RAW message or body]
Hi Ryan,
Your numbers also don't make much sense really.
1. There should be no decrease between the case of 1 sender and one (another)
receiver and the case of 1 sender and two (other, each on its own computer)
receivers if the network is one segment that is set up correctly.
2. 3 senders should be able to pump more than 1 sender. Did your 3
senders also receiving ? In that case this does make sense as each
sender is also receiving and in your first two tests it seems that
the sender is not receiving (am I correct?).
Also: I am not sure that the coarse-grain flow control in spflooder
allows running at full speed. In addition, I am not sure the default
flow control in Spread is set up for speed benchmarks. The default
parameters are set to optimize on the number of e-mails we get (as low
as possible) and not for best performance. Some of these parameters
can be twicked with spmonitor and some (esp. timeouts) require
recompiling.
Cheers,
:) Yair.
On Friday, December 05, 2003 9:06 PM
Ryan Caudy caudy@jhu.edu wrote:
Ryan> I don't have a decent Solaris cluster to test on, but a quick test using
Ryan> our Linux cluster (on a 100 Mbps ethernet network) gives (pretty rough)
Ryan> results of:
Ryan> 1 sender + 1 receiver: 85 Mbps
Ryan> 1 sender + 2 receivers: 40 Mbps
Ryan> 3 senders: 52 Mbps
Ryan> In each of these tests, nodes listed as senders are receiving messages
Ryan> as well, and nodes listed as receivers are just receiving. Having more
Ryan> sending nodes will increase the overall throughput, because more of the
Ryan> token's circulation time will be used to send. I'm not sure of the
Ryan> details of the test that led to the 8000 * 1KB number on the Spread
Ryan> Overview.
Ryan> I think the problem may lie outside of Spread, or with the Solaris port.
Ryan> Cheers,
Ryan> Ryan
Ryan> wei_hu@agilent.com wrote:
> > Spread performance question:
> >
> > I am doing some investigation on spread to decide if it could be used as \
> > middleware in our project. I studied spread for two days and did some benchmark. \
> > I do have some questions. Appreciate any comment on them.
> >
> > To do the benchmark, I used one Solaris machine as Sender and other one/two \
> > machines as Receivers. All machines are in one subnet. Spfloor in spread package \
> > was used as benchmark program. There is average message rate I got. Message \
> > size was 1K. 1 sender + 1 receiver: 19.07 Mbps
> > 1 sender + 2 receiver: 13.46 Mbps
> > The sender and one of the receivers is 500Mhz CPU, 1G memory, Solaris OS. \
> > Another receiver is 500Mhz CPU, 512M memory, Solaris OS.
> > My question is:
> > 1. The message transmitting rate is far below what is claimed in "Spread \
> > Overview" (8K 1Kbytes per second). Any possible reason for that? 2. Why \
> > plugging in more receivers decreased the message transmitting rate? 3. Spread \
> > daemon burned up to 70% CPU time?
> > _______________________________________________
> > Spread-users mailing list
> > Spread-users@lists.spread.org
> > http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users
> >
_______________________________________________
Spread-users mailing list
Spread-users@lists.spread.org
http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic