4 ms·

So, the benchmark shows that NFS is slower than direct disk access. Is anyone surprised? The bit about VMware and bHyve is irrelevant here. If you wanted to co

So, the benchmark shows that NFS is slower than direct disk access. Is anyone surprised? The bit about VMware and bHyve is irrelevant here. If you wanted to compare the hypervisors performance, you would do it by using a local disk in VMware, or using NFS disks from bHyve. As it is, it looks like someone just really wanted an opportunity to advertise bHyve. Disclaimer: I use bHyve myself, and I think it's pretty good for what it does.

geerlingguy 11y ago
...but also much faster than normal/native shared folders: http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff-geerling/vagrant-vmware-7-vs-virtualbox-5-benchmarks http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff-geerling/vagrant-vmw... NFS can be useful in many scenarios, but using native FS (or using rsync to sync instead of mount a shared folder) is always going to win that battle.