Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Friday 06 January 2012 09:10:02 Felix Frank wrote: > On 01/05/2012 06:22 PM, Lutz Vieweg wrote: > > But I hoped for some increased performance when running two > > independent processes reading two different files. > > in most load balancing scenarios, I wouldn't expect to notice any > performance differences between one and two clients respectively. > > I would include as many clients in any load test as the system under > test can sensibly service. In the case of disk performance, this will > not be easy, seeing as you need to be careful not to measure your page > cache performance instead of disk performance etc. > > Still, I believe you may get better results if you can find some "true > world" application that is both multi threaded and I/O bound, and have > it do some heavy lifting with and without disk load balancing. > > MySQL comes to mind, if you drastically limit its in-memory caches. dbench would be my current weapon of choice. And then do a test of 2^x (with x=[1,10]) clients. Arnold -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://lists.linbit.com/pipermail/drbd-user/attachments/20120106/03dda0c9/attachment.pgp>