[Gluster-devel] glfs vs. unfsd performance figures (was: Multiple NFS Servers (Gluster NFS in 3.x, unfsd, knfsd, etc.)
Martin Fick
mogulguy at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 8 21:15:42 UTC 2010
--- On Fri, 1/8/10, Gordan Bobic <gordan at bobich.net> wrote:
...
> >> On writes, NFS gets 4.4MB/s, GlusterFS (server
> side AFR) gets 4.6MB/s. Pretty even.
> >> On reads GlusterFS gets 117MB/s, NFS gets 119MB/s
> (on the first read after flushing the caches, after that it
> goes up to 600MB/s). The difference in the unbuffered
> readings seems to be in the sane ball park and the
> difference on the reads is roughly what I'd expect
> considering NFS is running UDP and GLFS is running TCP.
> >>
...
> # The machines involved are quad core
> time make -j8 all
>
> 1) pure ext3
> 6:40 CPU bound
> 2) ext3
> 15:15 rootfs (glfs, no
> cache) I/O bound
> 3) ext3+knfsd
> 7:02 mostly network bound
> 4) ext3+unfsd 16:04
> 5) glfs
> 61:54 rootfs (glfs, no
> cache) I/O bound
> 6) glfs+cache
> 32:32 rootfs (glfs, no cache) I/O bound
> 7) glfs+unfsd 278:30
> 8) glfs+cache+unfsd 189:15
> 9) glfs+cache+glfs 186:43
Am I understanding correctly that all the glfs benchmarks are
using AFR? If so, perhaps that is not a very useful comparison
since the AFR locking might be your bottleneck with a make?
If so, it would then not highlight any potential differences
between your nfs server and pure glfs setup. I think it
would be more useful to remove AFR from the picture to get
a real idea,
-Martin
More information about the Gluster-devel
mailing list