From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 7 21:02:28 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E18286; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 21:02:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lev@FreeBSD.org) Received: from onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:60a2::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BC6D1686; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 21:02:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lion.home.serebryakov.spb.ru (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:923f:1:d1e6:17e6:7b26:3ee6]) (Authenticated sender: lev@serebryakov.spb.ru) by onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68B2E4AC1C; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 01:02:26 +0400 (MSK) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 01:02:24 +0400 From: Lev Serebryakov Organization: FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1885849141.20130708010224@serebryakov.spb.ru> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Samba server performance -- only 33MiB/s with one client on 1G network! In-Reply-To: <866737084.20130707233704@serebryakov.spb.ru> References: <866737084.20130707233704@serebryakov.spb.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: timur@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Lev Serebryakov List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 21:02:28 -0000 Hello, Lev. You wrote 7 =D0=B8=D1=8E=D0=BB=D1=8F 2013 =D0=B3., 23:37:04: LS> So, smbd is NOT limited by: LS> (1) FS (33MiB/s vs 280MiB/s). LS> (2) Network (33MiB/s vs 820Mbit/s / 97MiB/s). LS> (3) CPU (50% vs 100%, CPU is 150% idle!). LS> Why samba performacne is so loosy? What could I've "ktrace" smbd process in question and see a lot of 67106 100935 smbd 0.003483 CALL geteuid 67106 100935 smbd 0.003485 RET geteuid 0 67106 100935 smbd 0.003487 CALL getegid 67106 100935 smbd 0.003490 RET getegid 0 67106 100935 smbd 0.003493 CALL __sysctl(0x7fffffffd130,0x2,0x7ffffff= fd14c,0x7fffffffd140,0,0) 67106 100935 smbd 0.003496 SCTL "kern.ngroups" 67106 100935 smbd 0.003500 RET __sysctl 0 67106 100935 smbd 0.003503 CALL setgroups(0x2,0x804c45280) 67106 100935 smbd 0.003506 RET setgroups 0 67106 100935 smbd 0.003509 CALL setregid(0xffffffff,0) 67106 100935 smbd 0.003513 RET setregid 0 67106 100935 smbd 0.003516 CALL getegid 67106 100935 smbd 0.003518 RET getegid 0 67106 100935 smbd 0.003521 CALL setreuid(0xffffffff,0) 67106 100935 smbd 0.003525 RET setreuid 0 67106 100935 smbd 0.003529 CALL geteuid 67106 100935 smbd 0.003543 RET geteuid 0 sequences, really, there is (for 60 seconds of dump): 2131018 geteuid calls (35516 calls/s) 2130595 getegid calls (35509 calls/s) 959106 setreuid calls (15985 calls/s) 959082 setregid calls (15984 calls/s) 957925 __sysctl calls (15965 calls/s) It looks strange to me! And very ineffective! --=20 // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov