Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'async vs. sync' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
async vs. sync
Authored by: pfile on Jan 12, '04 02:44:28AM

I've found that the single most important thing to improve performance is to export the mount on the server with "async". note that the default used to be async on linux until recently, now it defaults to sync.

i'm talking about the difference between ~400KB/sec and 3MB/sec here on large files (30-40MB), over gigabit ethernet. (as a reference this link was able to do 16MB/sec using ftp on large files-- nowhere near gigabit speeds but more than 100mbit ethernet and possibly within reason since OSX does not support jumbo frames)

anyway async can be dangerous if the server crashes as the client is told that writes have been committed before they actually have. however NFSv3 is supposed to have some features that make async mounts "safer", but its unclear whether OSX is actually using these. i suppose if it conforms to the NFSv3 spec then it will...



[ Reply to This | # ]