[Spread-users] groups and daemons

[Ed Holyat]

Can this be adjusted through the spread configuration file (.conf)?

-----Original Message-----
From: Parisa [mailto:jalilimp at usi.ch] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 4:29 PM
To: John Schultz
Cc: spread-users at lists.spread.org
Subject: Re: [Spread-users] groups and daemons

Thanks, looks as if it is the solution :)
I can push the throughout further now.

P.



On Nov 22, 2011, at 9:59 PM, John Schultz wrote:

> I'm not sure what the bottleneck here is.
>
> It could be the flow control parameters of your configuration are  
> too low to hit cpu and/or bandwidth limits.  You can change the flow  
> control parameters manually through the spmonitor program if you  
> have dangerous monitor turned on in your configuration file.  Out of  
> the box the window is 60 and the personal window is 15.  You could  
> try experimentally increasing these parameters by a multiplicative  
> factor and see if it improves your throughput (e.g. - 120 and 30).
>
> Cheers!
>
> -----
> John Lane Schultz
> Spread Concepts LLC
> Phn: 301 830 8100
> Cell: 443 838 2200
>
> On Nov 22, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Parisa wrote:
>
> Hi ,
>
> I was testing the spread with the following setting:
>
> one segment with 4 daemons. which are deployed on 4 different  
> machines.
> then each daemon has two flooders connected to it. one is a writer and
> the other is a reader. these flooders are also on different machines.
>
> Then I have 4 groups. each pair of the flooders connected to that same
> daemon, form a group. Each writer only sends to its own group.
>
> and I am testing with SAFE_MESS type.
>
> The behavior I am observing looks a little strange to me. I am
> monitoring the cpu and bandwidth usage at the daemons during the
> execution. After a certain load which is close to 50 Mbps for each
> writer (which in aggregate we can say 200 Mbps) throughput does not
> increase any further. Though neither cpu nor the bandwidth at daemons
> and flooders is not saturated.
>
>
> Do you think I am doing sth wrong? Any suggestions why this should be
> the case?
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Parisa
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spread-users mailing list
> Spread-users at lists.spread.org
> http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users
>



_______________________________________________
Spread-users mailing list
Spread-users at lists.spread.org
http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users