[Gluster-users] Slow performance from simple tar -x && rm -r benchmark

[Bryan Whitehead]

[root at lab0-v3 ~]# mount -t nfs -o tcp,nfsvers=3,nolock localhost:/images /mnt
[root at lab0-v3 ~]# cd /mnt
[root at 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 at lab0-v3 mnt]#


On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:27 AM, David Coulson <david at 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 at lab0-v3 ~]# mount -t nfs -o tcp,nfsvers=3 localhost:/images /mnt
>> [root at lab0-v3 ~]# cd /mnt
>> [root at 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<david at 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