Στις 24/01/2013 03:00 πμ, ο/η John Hupp έγραψε:
So with the experience in the Greek schools, can more be said about
performance?
You don't need other people's advice on something you can easily measure
yourself.
Here's a comparison between NORMAL, BINDFS, SSHFS and NFS for copying an
.iso:
================================================================
root@pc:/NORMAL/dir# echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@pc:/NORMAL/dir# time cp ubuntu-12.04.1-desktop-i386.iso \
ubuntu-12.04.1-desktop-i386.iso.bak
real 0m29.371s
user 0m0.020s
sys 0m2.048s
CPU (via top): 50% idle, 40% wait
----------------------------------------------------------------
root@pc:/BINDFS/dir# echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@pc:/BINDFS/dir# time cp ubuntu-12.04.1-desktop-i386.iso \
ubuntu-12.04.1-desktop-i386.iso.bak
real 0m30.852s
user 0m0.020s
sys 0m2.320s
CPU (via top): 40% idle, 45% wait
----------------------------------------------------------------
root@pc:/SSHFS/dir# echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@pc:/SSHFS/dir# time cp ubuntu-12.04.1-desktop-i386.iso \
ubuntu-12.04.1-desktop-i386.iso.bak
real 0m50.056s
user 0m0.020s
sys 0m1.620s
CPU (via top): 5% idle, 15% wait
----------------------------------------------------------------
root@pc:/NFS/dir# echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@pc:/NFS/dir# time cp ubuntu-12.04.1-desktop-i386.iso \
ubuntu-12.04.1-desktop-i386.iso.bak
real 0m34.249s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m1.532s
CPU (via top): 5% idle, 80% wait
================================================================
So that's a 5% drop in performance with bindfs, negligible.
NFS is pretty light too.
On the other hand SSHFS (fat clients, localapps...) takes a heavy toll
on the server CPU and that reflects on the time needed to perform file
operations as well.
--
edubuntu-users mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/edubuntu-users
