On 02/12/2015 06:22 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 02/12/2015 03:05 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 02/12/2015 09:14 AM, Justin Clift wrote:
On 12 Feb 2015, at 03:02, Shyam <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 02/11/2015 08:28 AM, David F. Robinson wrote:
Just to increase confidence performed one more test. Stopped the volumes
and re-started. Now on both the volumes, the numbers are almost same:
[root@gqac031 gluster-mount]# time rm -rf boost_1_57_0 ; time tar xf
boost_1_57_0.tar.gz
real 1m15.074s
user 0m0.550s
sys 0m4.656s
real 2m46.866s
user 0m5.347s
sys 0m16.047s
[root@gqac031 gluster-mount]# cd /gluster-emptyvol/
[root@gqac031 gluster-emptyvol]# ls
boost_1_57_0.tar.gz
[root@gqac031 gluster-emptyvol]# time tar xf boost_1_57_0.tar.gz
real 2m31.467s
user 0m5.475s
sys 0m15.471s
gqas015.sbu.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com:testvol on /gluster-mount type
fuse.glusterfs (rw,default_permissions,allow_other,max_read=131072)
gqas015.sbu.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com:emotyvol on /gluster-emptyvol type
fuse.glusterfs (rw,default_permissions,allow_other,max_read=131072)
If I remember right, we performed a similar test on David's setup, but I
believe there was no significant performance gain there. David could you
clarify?
Just so we know where we are headed :)
Shyam
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
