[root@lab0-v3 ~]# mount -t nfs -o tcp,nfsvers=3,nolock localhost:/images /mnt [root@lab0-v3 ~]# cd /mnt [root@lab0-v3 mnt]# time bash -c 'tar xf /root/linux-3.3.tar ; sync ; rm -rf linux-3.3'
real 2m26.758s user 0m0.353s sys 0m7.101s [root@lab0-v3 mnt]# On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:27 AM, David Coulson <da...@davidcoulson.net> wrote: > Weird - Actually slower than fuse. Does the 'nolock' nfs mount option make a > difference? > > > On 3/21/12 1:22 PM, Bryan Whitehead wrote: >> >> [root@lab0-v3 ~]# mount -t nfs -o tcp,nfsvers=3 localhost:/images /mnt >> [root@lab0-v3 ~]# cd /mnt >> [root@lab0-v3 mnt]# time bash -c 'tar xf /root/linux-3.3.tar ; sync ; >> rm -rf linux-3.3' >> >> real 2m26.698s >> user 0m0.334s >> sys 0m6.943s >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:22 AM, David Coulson<da...@davidcoulson.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 3/20/12 2:47 AM, Bryan Whitehead wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm going to start off and say that I misstated, I must have been >>>> doing my *many-file* tests *inside* VM's running on top of glusterfs. >>>> I post a loopback test later this week. >>>> >>> Can you repeat the test using NFS rather than Fuse? I've seen a approx 2x >>> performance increase with 'small files' using NFS over Fuse, however I'm >>> not >>> sure if it's just anecdotal, or actually a reality. >>> >>> David _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
