4 ms·
> - Vagrant is a given, wonderful. It's really useful, but on my MBP I've found using it abysmally slow (VirtualBox backend, website code shared using NFS, DB
by porker 12y ago
> - Vagrant is a given, wonderful.
It's really useful, but on my MBP I've found using it abysmally slow (VirtualBox backend, website code shared using NFS, DB and everything else stored in VirtualBox VM and not shared folders) - page load times taking upwards of 20s (sometimes even a minute) when running direct on my MBP would be under 0.3s.
Never figured out the issue, in spite of extensive research and tweaking. Replace VirtualBox with VMWare Fusion? But without a trial available of the Vagrant addon, bit of an expensive gamble.
- jesseendahl 12y agoApparently syncing file changes between the VM and host via rsync leads to a lot better performance than using NFS. Worth a shot at least: https://www.vagrantup.com/blog/feature-preview-vagrant-1-5-rsync.html https://www.vagrantup.com/blog/feature-preview-vagrant-1-5-r... http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff-geerling/nfs-rsync-and-shared-folder http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff-geerling/nfs-rsync-a...
- kcorbitt 12y agoI have the same Vagrant setup you do (nfs-shared app directory, everything else inside the vagrant box), and while I see overheads of 1.5-2x, I've never seen anything like the 60x overheads you're describing here. Something seems off in your configuration. Perhaps you're memory-limited and the vagrant box is thrashing your swap file every time you make a request?
- steveax 12y agoMy personal experience is that the VMware provider is much snappier - and more stable too. The provider is what, $80 US? Not sure I'd call that an expensive gamble b
- tszming 12y agotry SMB instead of NFS