On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > Boris Epstein wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM, John R. Dennison <jrd at 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.