| |||||||||||||
memory vs performancememory vs performancePosted Apr 5, 2012 12:45 UTC (Thu) by alankila (subscriber, #47141)In reply to: memory vs performance by dlang Parent article: 2012 Linux Storage, Filesystem, and Memory Management Summit - Day 1
Perhaps the problem could be diagnosed by observing the read/write ratio. A fully cached scheme results in no read I/O whatsoever, while uncached case could issue far more reads than writes. In any case, one has to form some kind of estimate to determine what the acceptable read/write ratio should be for that particular job.
(Log in to post comments)
memory vs performance Posted Apr 5, 2012 20:21 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the problem is how can the system tell if the reads are needed because the data hasn't been available, or if they are wasteful because the data was available in the past (and then the question is how far in the past, in my case it was 24 hours + processing time, which is an eternity to the system)
memory vs performance Posted Apr 6, 2012 18:26 UTC (Fri) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
I'm not suggesting this is an automatic scheme. I doubt it is even possible to design. I'm just suggesting that if you have an understanding of the behavior you can use this sort of metric to determine if the system is behaving poorly or well.
memory vs performance Posted Apr 6, 2012 19:39 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
ahh, I misunderstood you. Yes, watching for this sort of thing is part of tuning the system.
|
|||||||||||||