From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 9 06:09:55 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C9016A41F for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 06:09:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from smtp5-g19.free.fr (smtp5-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CED343D45 for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 06:09:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (vol75-8-82-233-239-98.fbx.proxad.net [82.233.239.98]) by smtp5-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2815895E0; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 07:09:53 +0100 (CET) Received: by tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3F5AE4083; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 07:09:31 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 07:09:31 +0100 From: Jeremie Le Hen To: Joao Barros Message-ID: <20051109060931.GD5188@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <70e8236f0511050457s5ce6d8batf805fbc9edd91360@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <70e8236f0511050457s5ce6d8batf805fbc9edd91360@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Poor Samba throughput on 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 06:09:55 -0000 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 >