[Spread-users] groups and daemons
jalilimp at usi.ch
Tue Nov 22 16:48:03 EST 2011
Well, actually I modified these parameters inside flow_control.c file
and recompiled the spread.
I couldn't find anything in configuration file.
On Nov 22, 2011, at 10:46 PM, Ed Holyat wrote:
> 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.
> 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).
>> 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
>> then each daemon has two flooders connected to it. one is a writer
>> 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
>> 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?
>> Spread-users mailing list
>> Spread-users at lists.spread.org
> Spread-users mailing list
> Spread-users at lists.spread.org
More information about the Spread-users