Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:11:12 -0600 From: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> To: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS and SAMBA on RELENG_5 vs RELENG_4 Message-ID: <41E54C20.9060101@centtech.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050111170523.07c60600@64.7.153.2> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050111170523.07c60600@64.7.153.2>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Tancsa wrote: > > Has anyone looked at the performance of a UP* system on RELENG_4 vs > RELENG_5 as an NFS and SAMBA server ? I need to deploy such a box and > was wondering if someone has run through this exercise recently** ? > > I know quite often when the ugly asterisk laden word "benchmark" comes > up the rush of groans is deafening. But if you dont use benchmarking > programs as _part_ of the evaluation process, how do you determine what > will perform best for you ? We have a handful of FreeBSD NFS/Samba servers that are heavily used (mostly NFS). I have not directly compared 4.x versus 5.x with any tools, but I can tell you that a UP P4 box with 5.x is fast enough to support 500 P4's (linux) over NFS, with some tweaking. I've started making all my FreeBSD NFS servers 5.x. I'm doing some tests today with iozone+FreeBSD 5.3+RAID5/50/10+local/NFS, so if others are interested, I can post the information up somewhere when I am done. Keep in mind it's for in house information only, so I won't be taking performance testing requests.. :) Mike - let me know if you want any tweaks that I've done for anything specific. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology I have seen the future and it is just like the present, only longer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41E54C20.9060101>