Re: some simple nfs-benchmarks on 5.4 RC2
From: Claus Guttesen (kometen_at_gmail.com)
Date: 04/19/05
- Previous message: Eric Anderson: "Re: some simple nfs-benchmarks on 5.4 RC2"
- In reply to: Eric Anderson: "Re: some simple nfs-benchmarks on 5.4 RC2"
- Next in thread: Eric Anderson: "Re: some simple nfs-benchmarks on 5.4 RC2"
- Reply: Eric Anderson: "Re: some simple nfs-benchmarks on 5.4 RC2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:43:57 +0200 To: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com>
> > Q:
> > Will I get better performance upgrading the server from dual PIII to dual Xeon?
> > A:
>
> rsync is CPU intensive, so depending on how much cpu you were using for this,
> you may or may not gain. How busy was the server during that time? Is this to
> a single IDE disk? If so, you are probably bottlenecked by that IDE drive.
The storage is ide->fiber. Using tcp-mounts and peaking 100 MB/s it
used just about 100 % cpu.
Rsync was only used to copy the folder recursively (-a), it used nfs
to trasnfer the files to the nfs-server.
regards
Claus
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Eric Anderson: "Re: some simple nfs-benchmarks on 5.4 RC2"
- In reply to: Eric Anderson: "Re: some simple nfs-benchmarks on 5.4 RC2"
- Next in thread: Eric Anderson: "Re: some simple nfs-benchmarks on 5.4 RC2"
- Reply: Eric Anderson: "Re: some simple nfs-benchmarks on 5.4 RC2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|