Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 17:40:55 -0600 (CST) From: Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>, <advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Article in pcmag Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.32.0111051719050.6618-100000@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us> In-Reply-To: <3BE6F0BD.9F4173C4@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Terry Lambert wrote: > Bill Moran wrote: > > There was recently an article in pcmag that shows that Linux > > running Samba is faster than W2K. I thought it would be interesting > > to see the same tests run on Samba+FreeBSD, so I sent an email. > > Here is the article: > > http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s%253D1474%2526a%253D16554,00.asp > > > > My thought was that this could be good publicity for FreeBSD, if > > they run the test with the system properly tuned. If anyone wants > > to send email, I couldn't find an address for Oliver Kaven (who > > wrote the article) so I sent one to Davis Janowski > > (davis_janowski@ziffdavis.com) who appears to be Oliver's boss. > > Best not to play in the road, unless it's your turf. > > They didn't say which clients they were using; because of past > discussions, I'm going to bet that these were older clients, and > not NT Workstation/2000/XP clients, which perform significantly > worse under Linux than Windows, because of the data conversions > required. I can't tell from this sentence wether you're saying NT/2000/XP is worse for Linux, or the older Win9X clients. From personal experience, Windows NT 4 (and probably 2000 and XP) clients are quite a bit faster than Win9X clients when talking to Samba on a FreeBSD box. Far faster than NT4 to NT4 (haven't tried yet with 2000/XP). I regularly run six instances of PC-Rdist on a Windows NT machine (five instances talking to five other identical Windows NT machines, and one talking to a FreeBSD box running Samba) all syncronizing exactly the same humungous file tree and the PC-Rdist instance that handles the Samba box flies through its task at lightning speed and is done in about 30 seconds compared to about 5 minutes for the rest of them. Not only are the enumerations of the 50,000 files relatively instantaneous with Samba/FreeBSD, but it saturates the 100Mbit network on each file transfer, too. NT4 to NT4 doesn't come anywhere close. Win9X network performance sucks even with an NT4 server. I don't know wether Samba would be any faster or slower than NT4 with Win9X clients, but I'm guessing faster. Again, I don't know how things would change if a 2000 server were brought into the picture. -- Chris Dillon - cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us - cdillon@inter-linc.net FreeBSD: The fastest and most stable server OS on the planet - Available for IA32 (Intel x86) and Alpha architectures - IA64, PowerPC, UltraSPARC, and ARM architectures under development - http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.32.0111051719050.6618-100000>