1 Jul 2003 01:18
RE: close() / nfs commit performance
Edward Roper <eroper <at> wanfear.com>
2003-06-30 23:18:53 GMT
2003-06-30 23:18:53 GMT
Fair enough, I've read the faq and understand your argument. However I would really be curious as to why local write benchmarks (on the server itself) with calling close() and using a test-file of 2GB (twice my ram) and a record size of 8192 I obtain a write throughput of 24,739KB/Second whereas over NFS I obtain only 4,924KB/Second on a 500mb file with 8192 record size? I realize that plopping a pci-nvramish device (http://www.umem.com/) and setting data=journal with my ext3 journal residing on the nvram would indeed offer a performance increase. I don't see where it's going to be a 5x increase however when I don't seem to be bottle necking at direct-attach-disk-i/o. Perhaps local close() calls don't actually commit to disk? Watching the machines leds (albeit a very primitive method) doesn't show constant harddisk action while I'm supposedly waiting on a physical disk commit. I get a brief flash of activity once every 30 seconds or so instead across the array. I plan on purchasing the nvram but I'm just making sure it's really going to make the difference that I'm looking for. On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 15:39, Lever, Charles wrote: > ed- > > read the FAQ: http://nfs.sourceforge.net/ > > close(2) on an NFS file means flush all outstanding > writes. benchmarking without the close() means you're(Continue reading)
RSS Feed