From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Xin Zhao <uszhaoxin@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why will NFS client spend so much time on file open?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:36:28 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1156455388.5629.85.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4ae3c140608240015v6078fc29r287601aad7a2f1dc@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 03:15 -0400, Xin Zhao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I did Apache benchmark and collected the performance results at the
> file system call level.
> The microbenchmark results were collected when I did "make" on Apache
> source code.
>
> The results are very interesting:
>
> open read
> Total Time (s) 21.599 15.948 Count 310274
> 98028 Time/Call (ms) 69.61 162.69
>
> The results show that NFS spent even more time on file open than on
> file read. But this result confuses me: what does NFS do to open a
> file? As far as I know, it just issues a lookup() RPC to get file
> handle, and maybe a getattr() RPC to get file attributes. This should
> not take so much time. Can someone explain why this could happen?
It is impossible to tell without more information.
Are these all open() for read, or are you mixing in other stuff like
O_CREAT, O_TRUNC and/or O_EXCL? All of those flags will have an impact
on the open() latency.
What is your expectation w.r.t. read cache misses? Is the read cache
always guaranteed to be cold on every call to read(), or is your test
cycling through the same data over and over again so that the caches are
kept hot?
Cheers,
Trond
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-24 21:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-24 7:15 Why will NFS client spend so much time on file open? Xin Zhao
2006-08-24 21:36 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1156455388.5629.85.camel@localhost \
--to=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=uszhaoxin@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).