On 08/01/12 15:53, Mike Gerdts wrote:
Is it known and/or expected that nfs:/// repos perform *much* worse than
http:// repos?
As an example, I have two images that I started to update at the same
time. The repo is in SCA, the images are in BRM. I thought that NFS may
be the cause of the horrible performance so I hit ^C in one of them.
Then I started up a couple pkg.depotd processes for the on-nightly and
on-extra repos in SCA, changed the publisher settings on one of the
images to use http URIs, and restarted the operation (pkg change-variant
variant.debug.osnet=true).
The change-variant operation on the image using http repos finished 17
minutes ago. The one using an NFS repo is still plodding along. The http
operation needed to transfer 116 MB, the NFS operation needed to
transfer 105 MB.
Any idea what's behind this?
No, in general, the experience has been that NFS repos are almost always
better.
pkg(5) doesn't access NFS repositories in any special way.
Specifically, it just uses standard libc/Python file I/O to retrieve
package content from them.
My guess would be that the cache is cold on the other end or there's an
NFS configuration issue of some sort.
-Shawn
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
