Check out the new USENIX Web site. next up previous
Next: Recovery performance. Up: Experiments Previous: Comparing Hummingbird with EFS

Comparing Hummingbird with UFS: multi-threaded workload generators.

Many proxies are either multi-threaded or have multiple processes. Hummingbird is both thread- and process-safe. We implemented multi-threaded versions of both our workload generators, with a thread for the daemons in wg-Hummingbird, and ran similar experiments to the above with one processor running FreeBSD 4.1 with the LinuxThreads library. Table 5 contains a subset of the results of our experiments using four threads and two disks. In multi-threaded squid workload generator, two cache root directories are used, each residing on a disk. The experiment run time for the experiments in Table 5 are consistently longer than the corresponding cases in Table 3 due to an uneven distribution of the files on the 2 disks; we observed a bursty access pattern to each disk in the iostat log. Queuing in the device driver results in longer FS read/write time too. However, the Hummingbird throughput is again 2-4 times greater than for UFS, UFS-async, and UFS-soft.


Table 5: Comparing Hummingbird with UFS, UFS-async, and UFS-soft with 256 MB of main memory when all files are cached with 2 disks and 4 threads in the workload generator.
file disk proxy FS read FS write # of disk mean disk experiment
system size hit rate time (ms) time (ms) I/Os I/O time (ms) run time (s)
Hummingbird 4 GB 0.64 4.86 1.34 1,478,005 11.68 11,743
UFS-async 4 GB 0.66 5.92 6.39 5,638,201 10.72 30,427
UFS-soft 4 GB 0.66 3.25 20.42 9,405,301 9.76 45,655
UFS 4 GB 0.66 6.71 15.86 10,771,201 9.05 48,577
Hummingbird 8 GB 0.67 6.12 1.40 1,556,169 14.08 12,997
UFS-async 8 GB 0.67 6.19 5.18 5,466,061 10.67 29,354
UFS-soft 8 GB 0.67 6.04 14.67 8,678,761 10.52 44,622
UFS 8 GB 0.67 6.78 9.73 8,903,641 8.74 38,464



next up previous
Next: Recovery performance. Up: Experiments Previous: Comparing Hummingbird with EFS
Liddy Shriver 2001-05-01