From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: NFS Patch for FSCache Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:43:30 -0400 Message-ID: <428100D2.5030806@RedHat.com> References: <427F3BEC.4010900@RedHat.com> <20050509141945.60fecec0.akpm@osdl.org> Reply-To: Linux filesystem caching discussion list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com Return-path: To: Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <20050509141945.60fecec0.akpm@osdl.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-cachefs-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-cachefs-bounces@redhat.com List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > Steve Dickson wrote: > >>Attached is a patch that enables NFS to use David Howells' >>File System Caching implementation (FSCache). > > > Do you have any performance results for this? I haven't done any formal performance testing, but from the functionality testing I've done, I've seen a ~20% increase in reads speed (verses otw reads). Mainly due to the fact NFS only needs to do getattrs and such when the data is cached. But buyer beware... this a very rough number, so mileage may very. ;-) I don't have a number for writes, (maybe David does) but I'm sure there will be a penalty to cache that data, but its something that can be improve over time. But the real saving, imho, is the fact those reads were measured after the filesystem was umount then remounted. So system wise, there should be some gain due to the fact that NFS is not using the network.... steved.