From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 8 14:25:25 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67D379C5 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:25:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from smtp.eutelia.it (mp1-smtp-5.eutelia.it [62.94.10.165]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7E7D145C for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:25:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ns2.biolchim.it (ip-188-188.sn2.eutelia.it [83.211.188.188]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eutelia.it (Eutelia) with ESMTP id 7A38B159923 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:25:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from soth.ventu (adsl-ull-171-130.41-151.net24.it [151.41.130.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns2.biolchim.it (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r68EPGIw061687 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:25:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) X-Authentication-Warning: ns2.biolchim.it: Host adsl-ull-171-130.41-151.net24.it [151.41.130.171] claimed to be soth.ventu Received: from alamar.ventu (alamar.ventu [10.1.2.18]) by soth.ventu (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r68EP7JH011533; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:25:07 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Message-ID: <51DACBC3.6090403@netfence.it> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 16:25:07 +0200 From: Andrea Venturoli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130626 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Vande More Subject: Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance References: <51D6F1E4.4090001@netfence.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.73 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.73 on 10.1.2.13 X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (ns2.biolchim.it [192.168.2.203]); Mon, 08 Jul 2013 16:25:18 +0200 (CEST) Cc: FreeBSD Questions X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 14:25:25 -0000 On 07/07/13 00:52, Adam Vande More wrote: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2013-January/038903.html Thanks Adam. However: I'm using UFS, not ZFS, so the first part is not applicable. I have an nfe card, not an em; so again, the second part does not apply. The only tunable in that driver is hw.nfe.msi_disable and hw.nfe.msix_disable, which I never tried; I guess I could when I have physical access to the box, but again, they are enabled by default and I doubt I would get better performance by disabling MSI[-X]. In addition, I don't think I suffer from a NIC bottleneck, given the speed of NFS and a "find" shouldn't read the whole files, so shouldn't require a lot of bandwidth. The third section is interesting: still no change, however. This does not suprise me, since I had extensively tried these (and other settings from several Samba howtos) with different values in the past, the difference being always quite negligible. The last thing I'm considering is slowness due to the LDAP backend. This is what I'm currently investigating. All the literature on Samba seems to be quite Linux-centric; that's why I asked on the FreeBSD mailing list whether this could be normal. bye & Thanks av.