![]() ![]() The flow of doing this is something like this:ġ. So today we're gonna use vault to make the configuration of an application to be in-memory, this would make debugging harder (since it's in memory, not on disk), but a bit more secure (if got hacked, have to read memory to know the credentials). For other cases, that you don't care whether losing files or not and need high performance (as long as your ram is enough), just use tmpfs. I always prefer bind/mount-fs over docker volume because of safety, for example if you accidentally run docker volume rm $(docker volume ls -q) this would delete all your docker volume (I did this multiple times on my own dev PC), also you can easily backup/rsync/copy/manage files if using bind/mount-fs. The conclusion is, docker volume is a bit faster (+10%) for sequential small, but significantly slower (-72% to -84%) for large sequential files compared to bind/mount-fs, for the other cases seems there's no noticeable difference. # ^ running twice because I'm not sure why it's so slowġ0737418240 bytes (11 GB, 10 GiB) copied, 12.7516 s, 842 MB/s Time cp -R /temp3/file-IO-benchmark /temp1 # bindfs ![]() Time cp -R /temp3/file-IO-benchmark /temp2 # dockvol removing file when running benchmark twice for example):Īlias time='/usr/bin/time -f "\nCPU: %Us\tReal: %es\tRAM: %MKB"' ![]() First benchmark we're gonna clone from this repository, then run copy, create 100 small files, then do 2 sequential write (small and large), here's the result of those (some steps not pasted below, eg. ![]() The docker compose file is on the sibling directory as data-root of docker to ensure using the same SSD. Which one can be the fastest? here's the docker compose: So today we're gonna benchmark between docker-volume (bind to docker-managed volume), bind/mount-fs (binding to host filesystem), and tmpfs. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |