From: Mark H. <mh...@er...> - 2007-03-06 16:30:10
|
Lorinc Hever wrote: > Hi There, > > I did a test with one of our custom application on remote data. > > This application reads about 300 files first to collect some > orientation information and after rereads the files to build a 3D > model from the pixel data. Each file is about 512KB. > > I measured the read time with NFS and SSHFS and I just found NFS is 3 > times faster :( We would really prefer to use SSHFS for security > reasons, but this performance loss is too much. > > I've tried different mounting options without success (compression, no > read ahead etc.). > > You can find a debug debug fregment below. > > Any suggestion for tuning is welcomed! > > Thanks in advance! > > Regards, > Lorinc This is such an open ended issue. I saw almost the exact reverse when I was using sshfs to pull large files from a SAN to an SGI box a year ago. I was getting much better throughput with SSHFS than with NFS. Maybe it's due to large files, maybe it's just a fluke on my network. I don't know, but there might be another reason for the slowdown. -- Ita erat quando hic adveni. Mark Haney Sr. Systems Administrator ERC Broadband (828) 350-2415 |