You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
rjkroege
changed the title
cpu
opportunities to improve cpu performance?
Aug 29, 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.
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.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: