--- On Fri, 1/8/10, Gordan Bobic<address@hidden> 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,