| To: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: pmlogger -u questions |
| From: | "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:29:52 -0400 |
| Cc: | Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <155006091.5545657.1397518977813.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <01e901cf56df$4ce97de0$e6bc79a0$@internode.on.net> <1665962954.4723287.1397437104781.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <534B4330.1060008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <y0meh104nvl.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <534C4FF4.5000304@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140414212551.GK14108@xxxxxxxxxx> <534C6531.6050502@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <155006091.5545657.1397518977813.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.2i |
Hi - On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 07:42:57PM -0400, Nathan Scott wrote: > [...] > I concur with Frank here - definitely warrants some deep cost analysis - > it sounds risky WRT introducing performance regression. I wouldn't over-worry about it. The PMCD PDU's are already being relayed to volume files in one chunk, so that's great. Getting the trailer bytes in there would be dandy. Beyond that, we'd be actually saving some effort in that we'd eliminate one copy (by not going into stdio buffers). > What is the I/O size we generally submit from pmlogger data writes, > OOC? [...] Ken reported seeing alternating 4/8K write(2) syscalls coming, which makes sense for 12K-ish log record batches going into stdio. - FChE |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: pmlogger -u questions, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: pmlogger -u questions, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: pmlogger -u questions, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: pmlogger -u questions, Nathan Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |