Hello,
I wrote two simple single-process seq read test case to compare libgfapi
and fuse. The logic looks like this.
char buf[32768];
while (1) {
cnt = read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf));
if (cnt == 0)
break;
else if (cnt > 0)
total += cnt;
// No "cnt < 0" was found during testing.
}
Following is the time which is needed to finish reading a large file.
fuse libgfapi
direct io: 40s 51s
non direct io: 40s 47s
The version is 3.6.3 on centos6.5. The result shows that libgfapi is
obviously slower than the fuse interface although the cpu cycles were
saved a lot during libgfapi testing. Each test was run before cleaning
up all kernel pageche&inode&dentry caches and stopping and then starting
glusterd&gluster (to clean up gluster cache).
I tested direct io because I suspected that fuse kernel readahead
helped more than the read optimization solutions in gluster. I searched
a lot but I did not find much about the comparison between fuse and
libgfapi. Anyone has known about this and known why?
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
