I see the same kind of results, the attached is output form bonnie++ running on the same server against the same NAS (i.e. same raid group, same disks, same hardware) just mounted first as CIFS and then as NFS.
I tried to do multiple tests against CIFS but it took so long to complete that it was impossible. I will tell you that later I was able to do more and they get the same results. (see attached) On 2/25/07, Lam Hoang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Title: Bonnie++ V1.03 Benchmark resultsBoth of these mount points are on the same netapp. Client is a CentOS4.3 (RHEL4 u3) machine. time dd if=/dev/zero of=/nfs/.test bs=1024 count=250000 # real 0m27.267s time dd if=/dev/zero of=/cifs/.test bs=1024 count=250000 # real 11m14.242s Any thoughts or theories as to why CIFS is so much slower than NFS? I have tried different rsize/wsize options even and no difference. == Have you ever received any answer for this question ? Thanks/ _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
| Sequential Output | Sequential Input | Random Seeks |
Sequential Create | Random Create | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Size:Chunk Size | Per Char | Block | Rewrite | Per Char | Block | Num Files | Create | Read | Delete | Create | Read | Delete | ||||||||||||||
| K/sec | % CPU | K/sec | % CPU | K/sec | % CPU | K/sec | % CPU | K/sec | % CPU | / sec | % CPU | / sec | % CPU | / sec | % CPU | / sec | % CPU | / sec | % CPU | / sec | % CPU | / sec | % CPU | |||
| nato.prod.responsys.com | 8G | 10155 | 18 | 11889 | 3 | 5993 | 2 | 10903 | 17 | 13003 | 2 | 280.7 | 0 | 16 | 405 | 1 | +++++ | +++ | 1095 | 1 | 395 | 1 | 4685 | 4 | 1078 | 1 |
| Sequential Output | Sequential Input | Random Seeks |
Sequential Create | Random Create | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Size:Chunk Size | Per Char | Block | Rewrite | Per Char | Block | Num Files | Create | Read | Delete | Create | Read | Delete | ||||||||||||||
| K/sec | % CPU | K/sec | % CPU | K/sec | % CPU | K/sec | % CPU | K/sec | % CPU | / sec | % CPU | / sec | % CPU | / sec | % CPU | / sec | % CPU | / sec | % CPU | / sec | % CPU | / sec | % CPU | |||
| nato.prod.responsys.com | 8G | 48201 | 82 | 73251 | 11 | 2824 | 92 | 44649 | 86 | 75038 | 8 | 420.0 | 0 | 16 | 700 | 3 | 549 | 87 | 767 | 3 | 768 | 3 | 2556 | 5 | 916 | 2 |
| nato.prod.responsys.com | 8G | 48923 | 83 | 69904 | 10 | 2824 | 92 | 44295 | 85 | 71034 | 8 | 416.9 | 0 | 16 | 691 | 3 | 549 | 88 | 781 | 3 | 775 | 3 | 2561 | 4 | 910 | 3 |
_______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
