measure the effect of a more memory-local zfec variant on a webapi server #236

New Issue

zooko · 2007-12-18T22:36:57Z

zooko commented

2007-12-18 22:36:57 +00:00

The preliminary results of the load tests ("the webapi servers are the busy points. Each webapi server is on its own machine. Each one is consuming anywhere from 30% to 70% CPU.") suggest that zfec might be a bottleneck in a complete system (grid plus webapi servers). I have some patches to zfec which constrain its use of memory to be more localized in order to fit into smaller caches.

I will measure whethermany zfec processes running in parallel on one server-sized machine (an Athlon64 2.4 GHz, 512 KiB L2 cache, 4 GiB DDR2 RAM) benefit or suffer from this locality optimization.

The preliminary results of the load tests ("the webapi servers are the busy points. Each webapi server is on its own machine. Each one is consuming anywhere from 30% to 70% CPU.") suggest that zfec might be a bottleneck in a complete system (grid plus webapi servers). I have some patches to zfec which constrain its use of memory to be more localized in order to fit into smaller caches. I will measure whethermany zfec processes running in parallel on one server-sized machine (an Athlon64 2.4 GHz, 512 KiB L2 cache, 4 GiB DDR2 RAM) benefit or suffer from this locality optimization.

zooko added the

labels 2007-12-18 22:36:57 +00:00

zooko added this to the eventually milestone 2007-12-18 22:36:57 +00:00

zooko self-assigned this 2007-12-18 22:36:57 +00:00

warner commented

2008-03-08 00:53:51 +00:00

FYI, the new upload/download status timing pages tell me that for a 5MB
3-of-10 download, zfec is running at 89MBps, whereas AES is running at
5.6MBps. So at least for one-at-a-time downloads, AES is far more of a
bottleneck than zfec.

For a machine that is in colo, a 2MB download runs zfec at 587MBps and AES at
12MBps. A 16MB download runs zfec at 320MBps and AES at 12MBps.

FYI, the new upload/download status timing pages tell me that for a 5MB 3-of-10 download, zfec is running at 89MBps, whereas AES is running at 5.6MBps. So at least for one-at-a-time downloads, AES is far more of a bottleneck than zfec. For a machine that is in colo, a 2MB download runs zfec at 587MBps and AES at 12MBps. A 16MB download runs zfec at 320MBps and AES at 12MBps.