Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 04:32:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@ki.net> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Iozone: local vs nfs drives Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.961017042515.4767A-100000@spirit.ki.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi...
I was trying to prove a point in news tonight between using
an nfs mounted drive vs a local drive for a news server (one of the
gentleman doesn't seem to believe there is a difference).
My argument involved using iozone to show the throughput
differences between nfs/local r/w's, and the results I got don't
look right:
this is my nfs mounted drive (133k/s and 382k/s):
IOZONE performance measurements:
133152 bytes/second for writing the file
382386 bytes/second for reading the file
vs local drive (1.78M/s and 938k/s):
IOZONE performance measurements:
1784080 bytes/second for writing the file
938585 bytes/second for reading the file
They look right in so far that I would expect the local file
system to be faster then the remote...but I would also have expected
that reading the local file would be faster the writing it, as was
reflected in the nfs-mounted file system...
Both systems are running 2.2-Current, same kernels, about
3 days old...
I've tried varying the size of file iozone uses, up to a
30Meg file, and the results seem to be quite consistent:
IOZONE performance measurements:
1984490 bytes/second for writing the file
1117239 bytes/second for reading the file
Why would reading the file be half as fast as writing it?
Marc G. Fournier scrappy@ki.net
Systems Administrator @ ki.net scrappy@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.95.961017042515.4767A-100000>