Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

opportunities to improve cpu performance? #240

Open
rjkroege opened this issue Aug 29, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

opportunities to improve cpu performance? #240

rjkroege opened this issue Aug 29, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@rjkroege
Copy link
Contributor

I had the (I thought inspired) but (obvious given the context here) idea of using cpu to mount a selection of pre-built binary tools into a GCP node rather than installing them or building an archive or such not. But performance is insufficient for this use case.

While Internet bandwidth is definitely a very significant part of this, I did some benchmarking and believe that cpu itself could be more performant.

# local to remote
; time rsync -av $_h/wrks/archive/bins/linux/amd64/rclone ween:
building file list ... done
rclone

sent 71019517 bytes  received 42 bytes  2407442.68 bytes/sec
total size is 71010723  speedup is 1.00
       29.16 real         0.26 user         0.32 sys
;
; time cpu ween cp /usr/local/rjkroege/wrks/archive/bins/linux/amd64/rclone /home/rjkroege/rclone2
      127.54 real         0.78 user         1.85 sys
@rjkroege rjkroege changed the title cpu opportunities to improve cpu performance? Aug 29, 2023
@patattila
Copy link

patattila commented Nov 8, 2023

Have you tested gnu parallell?

https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/

Use tmpfs to get the best performance.

@rjkroege
Copy link
Contributor Author

rjkroege commented Nov 9, 2023

Can you expand on your suggestion. I don't think that the local filesystem is the bottleneck here because it was getting used at both ends of the transfer both with cpu and with rsync.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants