From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 11 04:21:12 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3938916A41F for ; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:21:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joao.barros@gmail.com) Received: from xproxy.gmail.com (xproxy.gmail.com [66.249.82.200]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6BB43D46 for ; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:21:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joao.barros@gmail.com) Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id t12so452510wxc for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:21:11 -0800 (PST) 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=ZRHchPVBN+QBdq0eYWKgWa8gW5SXCIWgW518fqEVBRGvCESy2FDowR79btz/YpKEE6S2G1GlfFlMLCoaULqbVDp9FWUSDUef5seS7eG9AlTHXVQN8mMD+hZmoD5o/og39dkWtSbRLXprpTwP2ZkFTefUjTkGZ0+NOIeMJAnZs+8= Received: by 10.70.131.19 with SMTP id e19mr760132wxd; Wed, 09 Nov 2005 05:17:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.9.10 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 05:17:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <70e8236f0511090517g29b3f887x1b97ef5dec04548@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:17:35 +0000 From: Joao Barros To: Jeremie Le Hen In-Reply-To: <20051109060931.GD5188@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <70e8236f0511050457s5ce6d8batf805fbc9edd91360@mail.gmail.com> <20051109060931.GD5188@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Poor Samba throughput on 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:21:12 -0000 On 11/9/05, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > Hi, Joao, > > > Last month I started a thread[1] on current@ about this, but I guess I > > should have done it here, my apologies for that. > > > > After my initial post I did some more testing and I'm going to start > > clean here with all my findings :) > > > > I started with Samba 3 installed on a PIII 733MHz with fxp (82559) and > > a RAID5 consisting of 4 drives connected to an amr. > > Performance reading or writing was poor, around 5.5MB/s measured on > > two Windows clients and iostat never topped that by much. > > cpu was mbufs were available and there were no IRQs shared. > > To dismiss the amr out of the question I tried with a local IDE > > attached yielding the same results. > > I then tested the same on a machine I have at work, an HP Proliant > > server, Pentium 4 3.06GHz, used SMP instead of GENERIC to use HTT. > > I could get 8MB/s with 2 read or write simultaneous operations. With 1 > > operation I still can only get 6MB/s > > This machine has 1GB ram and after copying a 700MB file to it it was > > all cached. > > A copy to dev/null took 1 second. > > A copy via samba took the same time as if there was no cache for it. > > iostat always showed 0.0 during the operation so that pretty much > > takes disks, controllers, IO out of the picture. > > > > Both machines have cpu, IO and mbufs to spare and they still can't use > > them. Why? > > I won't be able to help you much, but as almost nobody answered you, > I take it for the moment in order to ask you some more informations. > > Which scheduler are you using, 4BSD or ULE ? It might be worth testing > the other one and sending us the new benchmark results. The testings were all with either GENERIC or SMP thus using 4BSD, I can try ULE and see if I get any different results. > > Also, if you are able to remove a drive from your RAID5, you can try > R/W performances from/to it, without using amr(4), both with 4BSD and > ULE. I tried using a single drive, an IDE and a SCSI-2 and on 2 machines at work both with a RAID1. Even better, there is a part in my initial email where I mention that having a 700MB file cached (iostat reported no reads) the results were the same. With this in mind I don't think the problem is at the storage level. -- Joao Barros