(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
Jan Harkes <jaharkes_at_cs.cmu.edu> writes: > We used a modified Andrew benchmark to test by untarring and building a > Coda source tree, locally, in Coda using the Coda kernel module, and > using the Linux 9pfs kernel module with and without caching. > > - on local filesystem, 1m 59s > - in Coda using Coda kernel module, 2m 9s > - in Coda using 9p2000, 67m 39s > - in Coda using 9p2000 with caching 3m 51s > - in Coda using 9p2000.u, 70m 23s > - in Coda using 9p2000.L, ~5m It would be good to test this on some other system than Linux, since the point is to support systems that have a FUSE implementation but not a coda kernel one, and to start doing this early, to guard against linux-only things. But its good to see some numbers. I wonder how much of this is about when there is sync to disk. What about using a fuse p9 client on linux, instead of the kernel module? Does that have a notion of caching? Is that read caching, or also write caching? Do you understand where the time is going? A factor of 2 or 3 does not seem surprising, but 30x is.Received on 2018-11-26 10:28:43