Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750702AbVJHF7w (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Oct 2005 01:59:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750783AbVJHF7v (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Oct 2005 01:59:51 -0400 Received: from mustang.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.3]:64741 "HELO mustang.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750702AbVJHF7v (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Oct 2005 01:59:51 -0400 Subject: Re: why is NFS performance poor when decompress linux kernel From: Lee Revell To: Xin Zhao Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4ae3c140510072139n68b9b2eeyc0a400be32d958fe@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ae3c140510072139n68b9b2eeyc0a400be32d958fe@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 01:59:48 -0400 Message-Id: <1128751189.17981.62.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 918 Lines: 19 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. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/