|
|
|
|
|
|
by timc3
2286 days ago
|
|
|
What a load of nonsense. So cloud provides X doesn’t like the test because the defaults of their services do not provide the best performance and on top of that the benchmark used doesn’t present them with the result that shows them in the best possible light. It’s like listening to failed beauty pageant contenders |
|
|
There are many changes I would make to increase performance for one workload that would have a deleterious effect on another. An easy example is the dirty ratio in Linux - depending on the speed of your local storage, what the size of your working set of memory is, how frequently the data in the working set changes, keeping the settings the same across workloads and systems could be disastrous - it could result in extended periods where you are stuck in a synchronous flush to disk and block all other IO. That same setting on another server might be perfectly acceptable and prevent having to go to slower block storage devices sooner than necessary, increasing overall performance.
It's the same with how you configure your servers - you can throw more spindles at sequential workloads and have great performance, but a random workload really should be using flash storage, etc. etc. etc.
Most people strive to provide sane defaults that strike a good balance for the majority of workloads. This is going to be beneficial to the largest number of people. It's totally fair for someone to provide feedback on this sort of thing, and give details on how things could be further optimized to fit a specific workload. Defaults are not best practices - they are a starting point.