Fine by me. I agree with Sam that the threaded version probably ought
to be the default *eventually*, but that it's really low on the list
of priorities. -- Rob
On Feb 14, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Sam Lang wrote:
On Feb 14, 2008, at 4:34 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
What does everybody think about this?
I think the patch looks great. My only concern is that this will
make the threaded client daemon never get used. My view is that we
should probably have the threaded version as the default. I think
in the general case, the threaded version is going to perform
better. Its pretty hard to buy a system that doesn't have at least
two cores today, and even on a uni-processor system, the
performance of the threaded daemon shouldn't be much worse than the
non-threaded.
I originally added the threaded client functionality to see if it
would help performance, but it turned out to be buggy. Maybe with
Phil's recent thread-safety fixes to the system interfaces, we
should revisit making the threaded daemon the default.
I'm not sure that the overhead of a single operation will be
affected much, honestly. We can't disable threads and locking
entirely, since we need the remount thread running. I think the
patch I just committed to fix the segfault in HEAD will likely help
with individual operation performance more than disabling threads
would. Just my 2c though.
Its hard to get a feeling for how much the threaded daemon would
help without a thorough performance analysis of the two on a number
of different systems. Something I would like to do at some point,
but its pretty low on the list.
_______________________________________________
Pvfs2-developers mailing list
Pvfs2-developers@beowulf-underground.org
http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
