Hi, just thought I'd throw my two cents in here
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 09:33 -0500, Robert Latham wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 06:47:41PM -0500, Sam Lang wrote:
> > Also, should we increase the limit of request segments allowed? It
> > might be inefficient for a user to create an MPI ind
n satisfied.
2) (Alternative) Make the offset-length pairs limit part of the
requirement for small I/O.
Avery
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 17:44 -0500, Avery Ching wrote:
> I was able to repeat the bug on the 4 server 20 client setup you had. I
> also made it happen on 1 client and 2 servers.
I kept getting segmentation faults with the read case in the small I/O
state machine. I think there's a problem with the parameter passed in
to job_trove_bstream_read_list() around line 194 of small-io.sm.
instead of:
&result.bytes,
I think it should be:
&s_op->u.small_io
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 17:26 -0500, Robert Latham wrote:
> Thanks for the patches. tracking down these bugs can be a big pain.
> good job, man. just a few questions.
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 03:44:28PM -0600, Avery Ching wrote:
> > small_io_total_bytes_fix.patch:
> >
small_io_total_bytes_fix.patch:
Fixed an issue with the small I/O total size being passed to the
trove_bstream_write_list(). The uint32_t was being casted to
(TROVE_size *)&s_op->req->u.small_io.total_bytes on line 162 of
small_io.sm.
process_multiple_aiocbs.patch:
Fixed the dbpf_bstream_listi
ey Avery,
>
> In what environment were you testing this?
>
> Rob
>
> Avery Ching wrote:
> > Phil, I've done some tests for noncontiguous I/O comparing the
> > lio_listio, aio_read/aio_write, and normal read/write. In cases where
> > there are a lot of
Phil, I've done some tests for noncontiguous I/O comparing the
lio_listio, aio_read/aio_write, and normal read/write. In cases where
there are a lot of noncontiguous regions, lio_listio and aio tend to
really fall behind. At least 1 order of magnitude slower than normal
read/write.
Avery
On Fri
that if possible. If we can't make any progress on it, I guess
I'll try to do that. I appreciate the quick response.
Avery
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 14:55 -0600, Robert Latham wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 12:38:26PM -0600, Avery Ching wrote:
> > By the way, is the datatype branch
, Sam Lang wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Robert Latham wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 07:46:09PM -0600, Avery Ching wrote:
> >> Hi guys. I'm sending you guys a link for a somewhat complex I/O
> >> benchmark I wrote for doing all kinds of noncontiguo
rob
>
> Robert Latham wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:22:35PM -0600, Avery Ching wrote:
> >> Sure. I'm actually have a single client just doing a small contiguous
> >> write of 50 bytes. But I think it occurs for pretty much any small I/O
> >> o
> Can you let me know what version of pvfs2 you're using, and also the
> patterns of the reads you're doing (the memory request and file
> request structures passed to sys_read)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -sam
>
> On Feb 22, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Avery Ching w
Hi guys,
I've been trying to debug a nasty noncontiguous I/O problem in PVFS2
and noticed a problem with the small I/O case. It appears that the
resp_io.total_completed = 0 in the write case even though some data
seems to be written to the file. I was thinking it might be because the
smal
12 matches
Mail list logo
