On 31 dec 2008, at 08:53, Bernard Dugas <bern...@dugas-family.org>
wrote:
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
nfsserver# time tar -cf - clientusr-amd64 > /dev/null
5.001u 12.147s 1:23.92 20.4% 69+1369k 163345+0io 0pf+0w
client9# time tar -cf - /usr > /dev/null
tar: Removing leading '/' from member names
3.985u 19.779s 4:32.47 8.7% 74+1457k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Note : clientusr-amd64 is around 1.3GB and is the same directory
exported to client9 /usr with nfs.
it's FAST. what's wrong?
First thing that may be wrong is the understanding of the time
figures. The documentation is not clear about them and the -h option
is not working :
client6# time -h tar -cf - /usr > /dev/null
-h: Command not found.
0.000u 0.000s 0:00.00 0.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
The main thing is that the 3rd figures 1:23.92 and 4:32.47 seems to
be the time i wait in front of the computer while it works (ok, i
know, i should enjoy a beer, or hot coffee with this nice snow ;-) :
client9# date ; time tar -cf - /usr > /dev/null ; date ;
Wed Dec 31 08:23:59 CET 2008
tar: Removing leading '/' from member names
4.103u 19.651s 4:25.80 8.9% 74+1453k 0+0io 2pf+0w
Wed Dec 31 08:28:25 CET 2008
and 08:28:25 - 08:23:59 = 00:04:26 is very close to 4:25.80.
On server, it means : 1440MB / 84s = 17MB/s
On client, that becomes : 1440MB / 266s = 5.4MB/s
I know the disk is not very fast, but i would like the NFS layer not
to add too much...
I don't want my users to wait between 3 or 4 times more because
computer is using NFS.
In my opinion there are more considerations than only nfs: the data is
pulled twice over the network, and the tar process might initiate
paging which is done over the network as well. The tar comparison is
not a good one.
Peter
--
http://www.boosten.org
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
