On 3/1/07, Matt Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would be interested in seeing your results. I suspect what you are seeing is either a) poor application design, b) poor CIFS client design, or c) use of features that are simply not supported by NFS.
Have you seen the post I made to cifs-protocol in the thread entitled "Problem - CIFS network throughput vs. NFS"? I used bonnie++ from sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bonnie/ (a disk load benchmarking application on CIFS vs. NFS) to generate results from the same client against the same server just mounted in two different ways. The results are staggeringly bad for CIFS vs. NFS. I get similar results if I use the SMBFS client as I do with the CIFS client. I also get a similar performance characteristic against a totally different CIFS server. As you mention, it could be the CIFS client implementation, as opposed to something inherent in the protocol, but I am having a hard time believing it since it would also have to be something in the SMBFS client. Can you recommend a "good" CIFS client that I can run the same benchmark against? _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
