chucklever@xxxxxxxxx wrote on 06/27/2008 07:36:44 PM:
> > But loopback is better than actual network traffic.
>
> What precisely do you mean by that?
Sorry I was not clear. I meant that the loopback will be better than
actual traffic between different server/client.
> You are testing with the client and server on the same machine. Is
> the loopback mount over the lo interface, but you mount the machine's
> actual IP address for the "network" test?
Actually isn't that the same? I am using localhost in any case.
> It would be interesting to compare a network-only performance test
> (like iPerf) for loopback and for going through the NIC.
iperf (one thread, 64K I/O size, 30 secs):
NIC: 445 MB/s
Loopback: 735 MB/s
In retrospect, for disk I/O:
/local: 39 MB/s
/nfs (loopback): 29 MB/s (25.5% drop)
/nfs (from a real server): 27 MB/s (30.5% drop, only point is that
this is a different disk on a different system and it doesn't
make
much sense to compare this to /local).
Thanks,
- KK
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
