Combining directories from multiple servers on a single mountpoint
Test Results
Table 2 lists the IOzone results for NFS and SSHFS from the previous article with the results for the five SSHFSM test sets:
- Baseline: Use all system and SSHFS-MUX defaults
- OPT1: SSHFS-MUX mount option tuning
- OPT2: OPT1 with TCP tuning
- OPT3: OPT2 with stronger encryption (aes-128)
- OPT4: OPT3 with compression turned on
Table 2
Results of Five Test Sets for All Six Test
Sequential | Random |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Test | Write (MBps) | Re-write (MBps) | Read (MBps) | Re-read (MBps) | Write IOPS | Read IOPS |
NFS |
||||||
Baseline |
83.996 |
87.391 |
114.301 |
114.314 |
13,554 |
5,095 |
TCP optimizations |
96.334 |
92.349 |
120.010 |
120.189 |
13,345 |
5,278 |
Baseline |
||||||
SSHFS |
43.182 |
49.459 |
54.757 |
63.667 |
12,574 |
2,859 |
SSHFSM |
43.207 |
52.068 |
54.746 |
63.437 |
12,848 |
2,892 |
OPT1 |
||||||
SSHFS |
81.646 |
85.747 |
112.987 |
131.187 |
21,533 |
3,033 |
SSHFSM |
85.904 |
88.210 |
112.963 |
130.861 |
20,447 |
3,315 |
OPT2 |
||||||
SSHFS |
111.864 |
119.196 |
119.153 |
136.081 |
29,802 |
3,237 |
SSHFSM |
113.567 |
120.037 |
119.072 |
136.104 |
29,802 |
3,038 |
OPT3 |
||||||
SSHFS |
51.325 |
56.328 |
58.231 |
67.588 |
14,100 |
2,860 |
SSHFSM |
54.595 |
61.111 |
67.107 |
67.379 |
13,958 |
2,670 |
OPT4 |
||||||
SSHFS |
78.600 |
79.589 |
158.020 |
158.925 |
19,326 |
2,892 |
SSHFSM |
83.120 |
86.599 |
156.035 |
155.923 |
19,439 |
2,767 |
To help visualize the data, the six bar charts in Figures 6-8 plot the results for all five test sets, one for each test.
Comparing the performance of SSHFS and SSHFSM is rather interesting. In general, the performance is quite close except in a couple of instances. For example, in the sequential write tests, SSHFSM is sometimes up to 5 percent faster than SSHFS. SSHFSM in the OPT4 results for the sequential re-write test is almost 9 percent faster than SSHFS. For the sequential read, re-read, and random read IOPS, SSHFS is sometimes slightly faster than SSHFSM. However, this comparison might not be that useful because the "spread" of the performance results is unknown, and one can't conclusively say one is faster than the others.
Comparing SSHFS and SSHFSM performance to NFS is perhaps more useful from a qualitative standpoint. When all the SSHFMS and TCP optimizations are used, SSHFS and SSHFSM has better write performance (sequential write and re-write, and random write IOPS). Even if a stronger encryption is used, which requires more computational capability, SSHFS and SSHFSM can be just as good or better than NFS for write tests. However, read performance for SSHFS and SSHFSM is worse or only close to NFS performance until compression is turned on (compression turned on results are OPT4). A remarkable result is that SSHFS and SSHFSM performance for the random read IOPS test is never better than about 60 percent that of NFS.
Summary
SSHFS has great potential as a shared filesystem. It encrypts data in flight, it allows users to control what filesystems they mount, and it only requires an open SSH port (port 22). With some tuning, you can get SSHFS performance on the same level as NFS, except for the random read IOPS performance. However, the price you pay is data encryption or decryption on both the client and server.
In the pursuit of even more performance, I tried SSHFS-MUX. SSHFSM is derived from SSHFS and has been extended to allow several directories to be mounted in a single mountpoint. I didn't test this feature, but I did test the performance of SSHFS-MUX relative to SSHFS. Although the tests I ran here are not as extensive as those I would perform for benchmarking, casual testing allowed me to gauge general performance differences. In some cases, SSHFS-MUX was a little faster than SSHFS, but it was fairly small, only about 5 percent for some cases.
For anyone considering using SSHFS, SSHFS-MUX, with its ability to combine directories from different servers into a single mountpoint, is a definite option.
Infos
- SSHFS: http://fuse.sourceforge.net/sshfs.html
- "SSHFS – Installation and Performance" by Jeff Layton: http://www.admin-magazine.com/HPC/Articles/Sharing-Data-with-SSHFS
- SSHFS-MUX: https://code.google.com/p/sshfsmux/
- Dun Nan research: http://web.yl.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~dunnan/
- Dun Nan: http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/people/dun
- IOzone: http://www.iozone.org/
- Arcfour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RC4
- Arcfour cipher speed: http://superuser.com/questions/32884/sshfs-mount-without-compression-or-encryption
- "OpenSSH ( SSHD ) Speed Optimization For Long Distance Data Transfer" by Nix Craft, http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/sshd-server-optimization.html
« Previous 1 2
Buy this article as PDF
(incl. VAT)
Buy Linux Magazine
Subscribe to our Linux Newsletters
Find Linux and Open Source Jobs
Subscribe to our ADMIN Newsletters
Support Our Work
Linux Magazine content is made possible with support from readers like you. Please consider contributing when you’ve found an article to be beneficial.
News
-
Linux Servers Targeted by Akira Ransomware
A group of bad actors who have already extorted $42 million have their sights set on the Linux platform.
-
TUXEDO Computers Unveils Linux Laptop Featuring AMD Ryzen CPU
This latest release is the first laptop to include the new CPU from Ryzen and Linux preinstalled.
-
XZ Gets the All-Clear
The back door xz vulnerability has been officially reverted for Fedora 40 and versions 38 and 39 were never affected.
-
Canonical Collaborates with Qualcomm on New Venture
This new joint effort is geared toward bringing Ubuntu and Ubuntu Core to Qualcomm-powered devices.
-
Kodi 21.0 Open-Source Entertainment Hub Released
After a year of development, the award-winning Kodi cross-platform, media center software is now available with many new additions and improvements.
-
Linux Usage Increases in Two Key Areas
If market share is your thing, you'll be happy to know that Linux is on the rise in two areas that, if they keep climbing, could have serious meaning for Linux's future.
-
Vulnerability Discovered in xz Libraries
An urgent alert for Fedora 40 has been posted and users should pay attention.
-
Canonical Bumps LTS Support to 12 years
If you're worried that your Ubuntu LTS release won't be supported long enough to last, Canonical has a surprise for you in the form of 12 years of security coverage.
-
Fedora 40 Beta Released Soon
With the official release of Fedora 40 coming in April, it's almost time to download the beta and see what's new.
-
New Pentesting Distribution to Compete with Kali Linux
SnoopGod is now available for your testing needs