Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:39:25 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance with hundreds of nullfs mounts? Message-ID: <gpaopm$jo4$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <49B81C01.1080007@csub.edu> References: <9bbcef730903101927l3134ce66vf959354914fe4754@mail.gmail.com> <49B81C01.1080007@csub.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Russell Jackson wrote: > Ivan Voras wrote: >> hi, >> I seem to remember hearing an anecdote somewhere that using hundreds >> (or thousands?) nullfs mounts for jails results in unreasonably bad >> file system access performance. Does somebody have this kind of setup >> / is it true? > > I was doing this with jails --before we moved to VMware ESX (for better or worse)-- and > didn't see any noticeable performance degradation at the time (6.x series). Thanks, everyone. I've tracked it down and I heard it from a collegue, only he was talking about unionfs not nullfs. > For those interested, the biggest plus for going to the ESX model is that it decoupled low > utilization Windows boxes from over-spec'ed hardware and made it available for FreeBSD to > use ;-). The downsides are that it's proprietary, it's expensive, it's inefficient (e.g. > duplicated files and kernel instances everywhere), and you need freak'in Windows boxes to > manage it. Yes, ESX is nice. I've also tried XenServer (the "official" Xen) and it's been terrible - both slow and clunky. Any other experiences? [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJuOZkldnAQVacBcgRAmPxAKDnr9+PR0IwYGHxLN2UkSEE9C/KhACeOV8j IM8d/k+I0hcEU72msWeiNYc= =vvCW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?gpaopm$jo4$1>