nullfs performance (Re: cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.emacs.mk bsd.gnome.mk bsd.mail.mk bsd.openssl.mk bsd.port.mk bsd.port.subdir.mk bsd.python.mk bsd.ruby.mk bsd.scons.mk ports/Tools/scripts security-check.awk ports/databases/p5-DBD-Oracle Makefile ports/databases/p5-sqlrelay ...)

[Kris Kennaway]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 08:43:17AM -0700, Brian Somers wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 05:45:01 -0400
> Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 11:42:36PM -0700, Brian Somers wrote:
> > > [-developers elided]
> > > 
> > > Interesting... I use nullfs as part of our build system here.
> > > I found that it's performance is appalling when pushed a
> > > little (running two builds on one machine, each with two
> > > nullfs mounts, two devfs and two procfs mounts gives a build
> > > time of 4.5 hours whereas a single build will finish in 1.5
> > > hours).  I've seen >6 hour builds on a loaded box - only
> > > attributable to nullfs.
> > 
> > What version?
> 
> The version that ships with 6.1.

OK, that's unusual and bears further investigation then.  When I
measured it I did not see this kind of dramatic performance loss
(anecdotally it doesn't fit with my own experiences either: I also use
it for parallel compilations, and I do not see anomalously low
performance compared to machines not using nullfs).

The only thing I can think of is that the underlying filesystem is not
mpsafe (e.g. are you using UFS quotas?), in which case it's not really
nullfs to blame.

Hmm, are you sure it's 6.1-RELEASE and not a prerelease?  I think the
code that was supposed to make the nullfs mount mpsafe conditional on
the mpsafety of the lower layer was broken until some time during the
release cycle, but it was fixed before the release.

Kris

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all/attachments/20060817/568707c5/attachment.pgp