From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 26 15:09:36 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE7316A41F for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:09:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joao.barros@gmail.com) Received: from xproxy.gmail.com (xproxy.gmail.com [66.249.82.206]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729EB43D6D for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:09:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joao.barros@gmail.com) Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id t14so321533wxc for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=XP3GNtP9ZMm78UEBkRYchAuSWfUGs7P8WFNQY9CEotEd9GO2Cci5Leu0iXNHvVN2TeivesxMGORomw7Bv0/Np914WuUwAAgnSH8M4+TLy8W+W+Em+NS6uXPr9F16Pej/EPNUtDlHFHYk+Gl8SEghQSRkpGti71Nt6L2iuI51ibk= Received: by 10.70.7.11 with SMTP id 11mr357089wxg; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.10.5 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <70e8236f0510260809j7612cf4di5d7bb00c986efa0c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:09:31 +0100 From: Joao Barros To: Alexander Leidinger In-Reply-To: <20051026163759.hlvgwsmbokswk8ww@netchild.homeip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <70e8236f0510241518x7b280938jd15f7e8c3224cbd@mail.gmail.com> <435D64B2.2020703@linkline.com> <6fb2b4650510242021l72a1ceb9m91e72a0420458982@mail.gmail.com> <70e8236f0510251636k1002cc96yd357492a138e1933@mail.gmail.com> <20051026163759.hlvgwsmbokswk8ww@netchild.homeip.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Robert Atkinson , Samuel Clements Subject: Re: Poor Samba throughput on 6.0 RC1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:09:37 -0000 On 10/26/05, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > I haven't read the entire thread, but by looking at this I assume there's > another FS than NTFS involved. Benchmarking with NTFS (or MSDOSFS) as the > underlying FS doesn't make sense (unless you want to measure the performa= nce > of NTFS or MSDOSFS), since it's slow (for NTFS you should be happy to at > least be able to read something, there's no open documentation about it > available). > > So I suggest you try with a good FS (ufs 1 or 2) only and don't bother ab= out > NTFS, to make sure the FS isn't the bottleneck. > > Bye, > Alexander. Your right, you didn't read the entire thread :D My first test was with ufs. I just popped an IDE disk into the machine to have means to compare. /dev/da0s1a on / (ufs, local) devfs on /dev (devfs, local) /dev/da0s1e on /tmp (ufs, local, soft-updates) /dev/da0s1f on /usr (ufs, local, soft-updates) /dev/da0s1d on /var (ufs, local, soft-updates) /dev/amrd0s1c on /storage (ufs, local, soft-updates) /dev/ad0s1 on /mnt/temp (ntfs, local) -- Joao Barros