Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 07:09:31 +0100 From: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> To: Joao Barros <joao.barros@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Poor Samba throughput on 6.0 Message-ID: <20051109060931.GD5188@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> In-Reply-To: <70e8236f0511050457s5ce6d8batf805fbc9edd91360@mail.gmail.com> References: <70e8236f0511050457s5ce6d8batf805fbc9edd91360@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Joao, > Last month I started a thread[1] on current@ about this, but I guess I > should have done it here, my apologies for that. > > After my initial post I did some more testing and I'm going to start > clean here with all my findings :) > > I started with Samba 3 installed on a PIII 733MHz with fxp (82559) and > a RAID5 consisting of 4 drives connected to an amr. > Performance reading or writing was poor, around 5.5MB/s measured on > two Windows clients and iostat never topped that by much. > cpu was mbufs were available and there were no IRQs shared. > To dismiss the amr out of the question I tried with a local IDE > attached yielding the same results. > I then tested the same on a machine I have at work, an HP Proliant > server, Pentium 4 3.06GHz, used SMP instead of GENERIC to use HTT. > I could get 8MB/s with 2 read or write simultaneous operations. With 1 > operation I still can only get 6MB/s > This machine has 1GB ram and after copying a 700MB file to it it was > all cached. > A copy to dev/null took 1 second. > A copy via samba took the same time as if there was no cache for it. > iostat always showed 0.0 during the operation so that pretty much > takes disks, controllers, IO out of the picture. > > Both machines have cpu, IO and mbufs to spare and they still can't use > them. Why? I won't be able to help you much, but as almost nobody answered you, I take it for the moment in order to ask you some more informations. Which scheduler are you using, 4BSD or ULE ? It might be worth testing the other one and sending us the new benchmark results. Also, if you are able to remove a drive from your RAID5, you can try R/W performances from/to it, without using amr(4), both with 4BSD and ULE. Regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051109060931.GD5188>