Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 7 Jul 2013 00:29:47 +0200
From:      Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd>
To:        Martin Alejandro Paredes Sanchez <mapsware@prodigy.net.mx>
Cc:        "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
Message-ID:  <FCE869EE-490D-419B-84B8-7CA9D8EFE28D@my.gd>
In-Reply-To: <201307061234.41962.mapsware@prodigy.net.mx>
References:  <51D6F1E4.4090001@netfence.it> <669058E9-E663-424E-94A6-29D81757C580@elde.net> <51D7DB83.4060809@netfence.it> <201307061234.41962.mapsware@prodigy.net.mx>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On 6 Jul 2013, at 21:34, Martin Alejandro Paredes Sanchez <mapsware@prodigy.=
net.mx> wrote:

> 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 <ml@netfence.it> wrote:
>>>> Is this normal in your experience?
>>>=20
>>> Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first?
>>>=20
>>> If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a
>>> major factor.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> the problem may be high log level for Samba
>=20
> You should read this
>=20
> http://www.hob-techtalk.com/2009/03/09/nfs-vs-cifs-aka-smb
>=20

Wow wow wow, their numbers with SMB seem super low.

They claim to get 80Mb/s NFS vs 7Mb SMB.

I'm getting 80-100Mbs with samba here with a core i3, 4gb of RAM and a 12tb r=
aidz2 pool on GREEN drives, which are definitely not server grade (replacing=
 them with WD reds, btw).




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FCE869EE-490D-419B-84B8-7CA9D8EFE28D>