On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Boris Epstein wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 10:59:13AM -0400, Boris Epstein wrote:
<snip> > To be specific, I use UNFSD to export a MooseFS file system. MooseFS, by > the way, is userland-process based too. > > Be that as it may, I've seen situations where a comparably configured > MooseFS client get to read at, say, 40 MB/s - which is fine - but the > UNFSD at the same time reads at 40K/s(!) Why would that be? I mean, some > degradation I can dig but 3 orders of magnitude? What is with this? Am I > doing something wrong? <snip> I wonder... what's the architecture of what you're getting these results? I tried opening a bug with upstream over NFS4 and 6.x, and no one ever looked at it, and they closed it.
100% repeatably: unpack a package locally, seconds. unpack it from an NFS mount onto a local drive, about 1 min. unpack it from an NFS mount onto an NFS mount, even when the target is exported FROM THE SAME MACHINE* that the process is running on: 6.5 - 7 MINUTES.
- That is, [server 1] [server 2] /export/thatdir --NFS--> /target/dir /s2/source /source/dir --NFS-->/s2/source and cd [server 2]:/target/dir and unpack from /s2/source
I suppose I'll try logging into upstream's bugzilla using our official licensed id; maybe then they'll assign someone to look at it....
mark
Mark,
Thanks, my architecture is extremely similar to yours, except that in my case the "second layer", if I may say so, is MooseFS ( http://www.moosefs.org/ ), not NFS. MooseFS itself is blazing, by the way.
So the diagram in my case would look something like this:
/export/thatdir --NFS--> /target/dir /s2/source /source/dir -- MooseFS mount (mfsmount) -->/s2/source
The discrepancy in the resultant performance is comparable.
Thanks.
Boris.