From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jun 18 07:22:47 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA28775 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 07:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ki1.chemie.fu-berlin.de (ki1.Chemie.FU-Berlin.DE [160.45.24.21]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA28709 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 07:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ki1.chemie.fu-berlin.de (Smail3.1.28.1) from mail.hanse.de (193.174.9.9) with smtp id ; Tue, 18 Jun 96 16:13 MEST Received: from wavehh.UUCP by mail.hanse.de with UUCP for msmith@atrad.adelaide.EDU.AU id ; Tue, 18 Jun 96 16:13 MET DST Received: by wavehh.hanse.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29247; Tue, 18 Jun 96 15:57:32 +0200 From: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer) Message-Id: <9606181357.AA29247@wavehh.hanse.de> Subject: Re: (SMB/Netware/NFS for DOS clients) (was BSD/OS ...) To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 15:57:31 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199606181353.XAA25533@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Jun 18, 96 11:23:08 pm Reply-To: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > If you think your samba servers are faster, could you please post some > > benchmark results, reading and writeing a file in - say - 8 KB block > > from a Win95 machine? > > Our previous software suite (pre-FreeBSD) used samba for fileservice on > a number of workstations (Sun IPX, Alphastations), and DOS clients using > low-performance ISA ethernet cards. > > Our primary demand on the network was directory lookups (finding the > next filename in a spool directory with up to 700 files in it) and bulk > writes to the server (several MB in a solid chunk). OK, yes, that are different needs than mine. Lookup is in fact not noticable slow with our samba servers. I need, however, performance for large sequential reads. > Unfortunately, the last system of this type around now is out at our > field station surrounded by a foot or so of mud, and I'm not inclined to > make the hours drive there to get some numbers 8) however I know we were > getting over 400K/sec out of a 486DX2/66 using a WD8003 to the IPX, and > closer to 600K/sec when we were testing the DEC DC21040 cards in a PCI > 486DX4/100. Seems to be the same ballpark as here. My disappointment is from machines like ISA-connected 486 and SGI Indys, who are really slow with samba, but faster when talking NFS to other Unixes. My concern is how fast samba will get when we switch to 100Mbit and I'm afraid more than those 600 KB/sec will not happen. > Read performance was never an issue for us, but in "general use" around > the office there were no complaints about performance when I ditched the > last OS/2 server for FreeBSD/Samba. Well, one thing I can't do with samba it burning CD's. Our burners are all connected to Win95 machines (:-p )and I can burn from a NT-Server's drive, but not from a samba server. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer Fax +49 40 522 85 36