--- On Fri, 1/8/10, Gordan Bobic <gordan@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
