so virtiofs is not using 9p any more? and with 10 million parallel requests, why shouldn't 9p be able to deliver 10GB/s ?!
On 5/31/22, ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 12:21 AM Bakul Shah <ba...@iitbombay.org> wrote: >> 9p itself is low performance but that is a separate issue. > > Bakul, what are the units? It might be helpful to quantify this > statement. Are you possibly conflating Plan 9 file systems being slow > and 9p being slow? > > As Rob pointed out in 2013, "If go install is slow on Plan 9, it's > because Plan 9's file system is > slow (which it is and always has been)", so slowness in Plan 9 file > systems is to be expected. > > 9p itself does have its limits, which is why Bell Labs Antwerp started > an effort in 2011 to replace it, but the new work never went very far. > > I also know of a number of efforts in the virtualization world where > 9p was discarded for performance reasons. It's hard to argue with the > 100x performance improvement that comes with virtiofs, for example. > > Gvisor is replacing 9p: https://github.com/google/gvisor/milestone/6. > Although, in the latter case, I would argue the problem is more with > Linux limitations than 9p limitations -- linux can't seem to walk more > than one pathname component at a time, for example, since it has the > old school namei loop. > > But I'm wondering if you have a measurement with numbers. > > For rough order of magnitude, HPC file systems can deliver 10 Gbytes/ > second for file reads nowadays, but getting there took 20 years of > work. When we ran Plan 9 on Blue Gene, with the 6 Gbyte/second > toroidal mesh connect for each node, we never came remotely close to > that figure. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T769854fafd2b7d35-M650fba778076835adf9ce8df Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
