From: Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org>
To: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
Cc: Xin Zhao <uszhaoxin@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: why is NFS performance poor when decompress linux kernel
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 09:19:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051008071936.GF22601@alpha.home.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1128751189.17981.62.camel@mindpipe>
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 01:59:48AM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 00:39 -0400, Xin Zhao wrote:
> > I noticed that when doing large file copy or linux kernel compilation
> > in a NFS direcotry, the performance is not bad compared to local disk
> > filesystem such as ext2. However, if I do linux kernel tarball
> > decompression on a NFS directory, the performance is much worse than
> > local disk filesystem (over 3 times slower). Anybody know the reason?
>
> Because NFS requires all writes to be synchronous by default, and
> uncompressing the kernel is the most write intensive of those three
> operations. Mount with the async option and the performance should be
> closer to a local disk. Obviously this is more dangerous.
I don't agree with you, Lee. My NFS is mounted with async by default,
and what takes the most time when extracting a kernel archive is that
tar does a stat() on every file before writing it. And THAT stat()
prevents writes from being buffered. A better solution might be to
process several files in parallel (multi-process/multi-thread).
Perhaps a project for a new tar ?
Just for a test, I tried extracting multiple files in parallel. The
method is completely crappy, but I could saturate my NFS server this
way :
$ tar ztf /tmp/linux-2.6.9.tar.gz >/tmp/file-list
$ sed -n '1~4p' < /tmp/file-list >/tmp/file-list1
$ sed -n '2~4p' < /tmp/file-list >/tmp/file-list2
$ sed -n '3~4p' < /tmp/file-list >/tmp/file-list3
$ sed -n '4~4p' < /tmp/file-list >/tmp/file-list4
$ tar zxf /tmp/linux-2.6.9.tar.gz -T /tmp/file-list1 & tar zxf /tmp/linux-2.6.9.tar.gz -T /tmp/file-list2 & tar zxf /tmp/linux-2.6.9.tar.gz -T /tmp/file-list3 & tar zxf /tmp/linux-2.6.9.tar.gz -T /tmp/file-list4 & wait
OK, it finally took more time, although the server was saturated (maybe
it crawled under seeks at the end, I did not check). This may constitute
a starting point for people having more time to research in this area.
> Lee
Cheers,
Willy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-08 7:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-08 4:39 why is NFS performance poor when decompress linux kernel Xin Zhao
2005-10-08 5:59 ` Lee Revell
2005-10-08 7:19 ` Willy Tarreau [this message]
2005-10-08 14:35 ` Xin Zhao
2005-10-08 15:03 ` Xin Zhao
2005-10-08 21:23 ` Willy Tarreau
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=20051008071936.GF22601@alpha.home.local \
--to=willy@w.ods.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--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