memcache is much faster than the disk cache. memcache will not get any
better if no one ever uses it so the openafs developers can get some
bug reports.
When we got out last system, the group at PDC decided that
non-swappable/pageable memory was a too expensive resource to be used
for file
Hi folks!
I would like to try tuning the speed of my openafs installation, but the only
information I could google is this rather old thread
(http://www.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-info/2003-June/009753.html) and the
hint to use a big cache-partition.
For comparison I've created files with
Kai Moritz wrote:
Hi folks!
I would like to try tuning the speed of my openafs installation, but
the only information I could google is this rather old thread
(http://www.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-info/2003-June/009753.html)
and the hint to use a big cache-partition.
For comparison I've
What are your data rates in MB/s?
scp says: 4.6MB/s
If you are on a fast network (Gbit Ethernet, Inifiband ...) a disk cache
may be remarkably slower than the network. In this case memory cache can
help.
I haven't tried that yet, becaus in the file /etc/openafs/afs.conf of
my Debian Etch
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],Kai Moritz writes:
I haven't tried that yet, becaus in the file /etc/openafs/afs.conf of
my Debian Etch installation there is a comment that says:
# Using the memory cache is not recommended. It's less stable than the disk
# cache and doesn't improve performance as
memcache is much faster than the disk cache. memcache will not get
any
better if no one ever uses it so the openafs developers can get some
bug reports. i think memcache has improved quite a bit (but it could
be better, i need to submit some patches) over the last couple years.
i use
Kai Moritz wrote:
What are your data rates in MB/s?
scp says: 4.6MB/s
Isn't great either. So may be you have some other problems in your network?
When I do a scp of a 100 MB file to my laptop I get ~ 8 MB/s and there
is in parallel running a remote rsync with about another .7 MB/s in both
memcache is much faster than the disk cache. memcache will not get any
better if no one ever uses it so the openafs developers can get some
bug reports.
That's true, but I cannot annoy my users with starving machines... Hence, I can
only run that on test-machines.
Greetings kai
--
GMX
* slowest: disk cache, of course.
* medium: memory cache
* fastest: ufs filesystem on a lofi-mounted block device hosted in /
tmp (which is in-RAM)
(I know this certainly wastes some cpu/memory resources and
overhead, but... it works)
That sound intresting!
I will give a
chas williams - CONTRACTOR [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],Kai Moritz writes:
I haven't tried that yet, becaus in the file /etc/openafs/afs.conf of
my Debian Etch installation there is a comment that says:
# Using the memory cache is not recommended. It's less stable
On Aug 23, 2007, at 10:49, Kai Moritz wrote:
* slowest: disk cache, of course.
* medium: memory cache
* fastest: ufs filesystem on a lofi-mounted block device hosted
in /
tmp (which is in-RAM)
(I know this certainly wastes some cpu/memory resources and
overhead, but... it works)
11 matches
Mail list logo
