gooding470
commented
5 years ago Hi Albert,
Sorry about that, something we just hadn't thought of at all, given this was written years ago for our traditional "bare metal" world where such things are all under control. But yes, I'll look at adding a check and a warning, that's a great idea.
BTW I have not forgotten your pull request for the scripts. I'm trying to get someone who understands your scripting languages (I don't) to go over it with me. We're all brutally busy. If push comes to shove, we may publish the dev branch to master before we get a chance to look at the scripts, but we can still bring them in later, on master.
Thanks again, Andy
Wasted a bunch of time testing some instances and eventually gave up on figuring out why the results looked weird compared to other similar instances.. The vendor finally came back and said it was because their OS image had "irqbalance" disabled by default, which caused the IO to stack up on cpu0 and make the ACT results look bad. After two weeks of back and forth, finally came to that conclusion and with irqbalance enabled things look sane.
Because having irqbalance can badly hurt IO performance, can we add a warning to ACT to tell the end user if irqbalance is disabled? Obviously this could be intended but a warning might be a good idea.