Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:45 +0100 From: Joao Barros <joao.barros@gmail.com> To: Robert Atkinson <phreaki@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Poor Samba throughput on 6.0 RC1 Message-ID: <70e8236f0510260200r60ba38abha0a3afefcfa976d4@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6fb2b4650510252107n66318924m874d530fb01410ad@mail.gmail.com> References: <70e8236f0510241518x7b280938jd15f7e8c3224cbd@mail.gmail.com> <435D64B2.2020703@linkline.com> <6fb2b4650510242021l72a1ceb9m91e72a0420458982@mail.gmail.com> <70e8236f0510251636k1002cc96yd357492a138e1933@mail.gmail.com> <6fb2b4650510252107n66318924m874d530fb01410ad@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/26/05, Robert Atkinson <phreaki@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/25/05, Joao Barros <joao.barros@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 10/25/05, Robert Atkinson <phreaki@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Maybe a longshot, but what is your cluster size? > > The default block size of 16384 bytes, a fragment size of 2048 bytes > > The ide drive has a NTFS partition which I mounted readonly and > > copying files from there resulted with the same below expected > > performance :( > > > > > > > > I'd be interested to hear if same irq is being shared if that is eno= ugh > bw? > > > > > > > I disabled the USB controller and the extra NIC to get more available > > > IRQs and tried using the amr on diferent pci slots with no change in > > > performance. > > > > > I could swear I remember seeing that actually usbd_enable=3D"NO" is requi= red > even > if you disable the usb controller for the problem with drive speed and th= e > usbd. I don't have usbd enabled. > > Above that, does dmesg still show the nic, agp, and scsi controller sitti= ng > on irq 11? > Might take a reset config data in bios, or a staggering of pci slots to g= et > it to stop > doing that. No, they don't share interrupts. And I did the slot juggling ;) > > > I'm not great at vm usage, but I think it could just be chipset issue. > I've seen some really poor results with disk performance from some people= , > but was mostly related to vnconfig and mdconfig (4.11 vs 5.X). For what it's worth, it's a server motherboard: Supermicro 370SSR > > This may not help your system out that greatly, as it doesn't appear to b= e > an issue, > but your fxp card should be supported for device_polling. AFAIK you shoul= d > see better > performance, since the fxp card won't be waking up the kernel for every > little packet. > Polling should help when you have lots of interrupts which I believe I do. My objective now is discovering why I do ;) > I'd hope that with screen updates, nic data and the load of the irq from = the > disk would > hurt it all. Surely the agp card is using up some of that, but I'm not su= re > of what that chipset would do under those types of conditions. I mostly use ssh on that machine. > > Is dma being enabled? Is it really important to have access times marked = on > disk? > You could/should turn that off with tunefs I think if you don't need it, > will waste some > access time and if you don't want that stamp, things should improve for a= t > least smaller files. My test is with big files. More easy to benchmark. > > Above all, when a drive starts to be unusually slow, I'd pop a 4.11 disc = in > and test, throw in hard drive > tester if 4.11 shows same perf, which is not easy for scsi drives (don't = see > smart data on the ones I have), ide drives can at least show me what erro= rs > are coming from the disk reads and I know the drive is going to be slower= . > (It takes 5 attempts to get a seek to go through) > I'm getting the same results from an IDE drive, a single SCSI-2 and a RAID5 with 4 drives. I take it it's not a drive issue. Thanks for your input :) -- Joao Barros
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?70e8236f0510260200r60ba38abha0a3afefcfa976d4>