Hi Jimmy, > Robin Yamaguchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:# > > Here are some of the results from running bonnie++ (HD/filesystem > > benchmarker) on an afs directory: > > > > ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- > > -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- > --Seeks-- Size > > K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP > > 496M 2351 24 2516 9 772 2 2793 25 3480 2 43.6 0 > > ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- > > -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- > -Delete-- files > > /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP > > 16 159 26 2013 82 198 18 162 28 1013 70 215 15 > > I dont think bonnie is a relevant benchmark for network filesystem.
Why not? I know there are reasons, but its not invalidation the big picture, does it? > > Have you tried something like: > > 1) Extract a tarball > 2) compile a program > As I already posted this is what we do on daily basis. It's our work, so to say _and_ make clean does take a _lot_ of time. Say: 2-20 times slower than NFS and 5-500 times slower than local ext3!!! (exact figures depend on server load and the exact program you are building/cleaning) > Or maybe you should try the andrew benchmark, which is more > relvant but very old. I check it. > > However if your are intressted in afs-performace-numbers you > can compare with mine, statistics are done with afsfsparf > from the arla-package. This is relevant when you test > fileserver-performance, it does not performancetests > client-performace. > /Jimmy I was not able to build it, up to now: missing libraries, strange config options, etc. Bye, Ruby _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
