On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Andrei Maslennikov wrote: > Current results may be found at the following URL: > > http://afs.caspur.it/slab/CASPUR-Slab-0603.pdf > > (Skip to page range 22-25, other tests have nothing to do with AFS). > > I would love to be able to report the better numbers, but AFS > performance does not look well for large files (and we used a > large cache on the ramdisk, and played with chunksizes and/or > fileserver params...). NFS is simply doing 2.5 times faster..
That is pretty sad, you're right. I think some work needs to be done to determine which of: -fileserver --just inode --just namei -rx --with jumbograms as is --with jumbograms disabled --with older 3.4 style jumbograms -client is really the source of the suck. i suspect it might be possible to improve write performance by parallelizing cache and network work, but really I haven't poked enough to know "how"; The question is, where can the most gain be had for the least work. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
