using virtual synchrony for CTDB

Steven Dake sdake at
Sat Oct 7 20:48:59 GMT 2006

On Sat, 2006-10-07 at 23:15 +1000, tridge at wrote:
> Steven,
>  > Your test program opens two sockets one for reading and one for writing.
>  > I don't know if this is your intended design, but not typical of a
>  > client server application.
> It's in junkcode for a reason :)
> Actually, I used separate ports as it allows me to test the same code
> on localhost. If you specify the same port number twice, you'll get 1
> port between two hosts.
> And in case you're wondering, no, this is not anything like the code
> we will use in CTDB. It's just my quick and dirty "how fast is gigabit
> these days?" test. In CTDB I plan on using the Samba4 events library
> and epoll() where available.
>  >  More likely you would see one socket for all communication (reads
>  > and writes).  That is how I wrote my original app.  In this case
>  > performance drops in half.
> why would performance drop? This test code is fully synchronous. It
> doesn't care if its one socket or two.
>  > Your test program also does not test the full exchange cycle, but
>  > measures ops as the number of read and write operations per second.
>  > Instead, I've removed this multiplier since it doesn't really
>  > measure exchanges.
> yes, that's why I multiplied your result by 2 when comparing.
>  > I have put it at and to
>  > match my original app design that tested request and responses.
> a few problems :-)
> 1) tcp-s.c has commented out the TCP_NODELAY setting. That absolutely
> kills performance! It means you are sitting waiting after each send,
> with the kernel hoping another send might happen on that socket so it
> can combine it.
> 2) tcp-s.c has changed to a 64 byte buffer, but didn't change the
> actual read/write size (the read and write calls are still using size
> 1).

Yes i was testing difference between 64 and 1 byte buffers but the send
still uses 1 byte.

>  > I get about 6k exchanges in this scenario on my gige network with jumbo
>  > frames amd 9000 MTU.
> That's the nagle algorithm killing you. Re-enable the TCP_NODELAY and
> that should rise a lot.
This has no effect on my system either way.


> Cheers, Tridge

More information about the samba-technical mailing list