From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 6 19:39:57 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60AC462C for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 19:39:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mapsware@prodigy.net.mx) Received: from nlpiport16.prodigy.net.mx (nlpiport16.prodigy.net.mx [148.235.52.21]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E01411CD for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 19:39:57 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjIFABxw2FG9qlY1/2dsb2JhbABagwkywB2BC4EAFoMXAQEFgQkLGBwSVxmIDwIKuG+PchaDWQOIbTiKXJUbgzE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,1010,1363154400"; d="scan'208";a="354217410" Received: from nlpiport21.prodigy.net.mx ([148.235.52.83]) by nlpiport16.prodigy.net.mx with ESMTP; 06 Jul 2013 14:34:35 -0500 Received: from dsl-189-170-86-53-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx (HELO morena.lan) ([189.170.86.53]) by nlpiport21.prodigy.net.mx with ESMTP; 06 Jul 2013 14:34:35 -0500 From: Martin Alejandro Paredes Sanchez To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 12:34:41 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <51D6F1E4.4090001@netfence.it> <669058E9-E663-424E-94A6-29D81757C580@elde.net> <51D7DB83.4060809@netfence.it> In-Reply-To: <51D7DB83.4060809@netfence.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201307061234.41962.mapsware@prodigy.net.mx> 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 19:39:57 -0000 On Saturday 06 July 2013 01:55:31 Andrea Venturoli wrote: > 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. > the problem may be high log level for Samba You should read this http://www.hob-techtalk.com/2009/03/09/nfs-vs-cifs-aka-smb