From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 6 08:55:58 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 23C4ACB4 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 08:55:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from smtp.eutelia.it (mp1-smtp-6.eutelia.it [62.94.10.166]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C041E3E for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 08:55:57 +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 39AF365DFF1 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:55:50 +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 r668tjGj068979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:55:47 +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 r668tVDJ006487 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:55:31 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Message-ID: <51D7DB83.4060809@netfence.it> Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:55:31 +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: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance References: <51D6F1E4.4090001@netfence.it> <669058E9-E663-424E-94A6-29D81757C580@elde.net> In-Reply-To: <669058E9-E663-424E-94A6-29D81757C580@elde.net> 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]); Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:55:47 +0200 (CEST) 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: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 08:55:58 -0000 On 07/05/13 20:42, Terje Elde wrote: > On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli wrote: > >> Is this normal in your experience? > > Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first? > > If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a major factor. Yesterday I did four test: _ SMB find resulting in over 10 minutes first time; _ SMB find resulting in nearly 10 minutes second time; _ NFS find resulting in a little over 1 minute first time; _ NFS find resulting in a little less than 1 minute second time. Today I tried again in reverse order: _ NFS find took 3 minutes; _ NFS find again took 21 seconds; _ SMB find took over 9 minutes; _ SMB find again took again over 9 minutes. So, while caching plays a role, it just isn't it. The server was possibly doing other things, so the above figures might not be that correct; however a difference in the magnitude order is just too big (and deterministic) to be considered random noise. bye & Thanks av.