Apologies, launchpad didn't keep the neatly tab separated column format, but hopefully the script can help others to test.
Attached png of side-by-side comparison of script output. Only the latency for accessing a single 4K block doesn't seem to differ too much, but for every other mult-block sequential IO read, in terms of latency, bandwidth and IOPS, GVFS is over 10 times slower than CIFS. While I know fuse mounts (userspace filesystems) will be understandably slower than kernel space mounts, more than 10 times slower is significant and indicates there's inefficiencies / room for improvement. ** Attachment added: "GVFS-SMB vs CIFS" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gvfs/+bug/1236619/+attachment/5379760/+files/gvfs-smb_vs_cifs_seq_read_benchmark_ubuntu_18.04.4.png -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to gvfs in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1236619 Title: gvfs smb / cifs file copy performance is terribly slow Status in gvfs package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: Copying moderate-size files to a samba share using gvfs is ridiculously slow compared to doing the same via mount.cifs. For example: $ ls -sh testfile 1.2G testfile $ time cp testfile ~/mnt/share-gvfs/ real 2m37.053s user 0m0.056s sys 0m5.120s $ time cp testfile ~/mnt/share/ real 0m26.134s user 0m0.004s sys 0m1.724s I'm running Xubuntu 13.04 (raring) amd64, gvfs 1.16.1-0ubuntu1.1. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gvfs/+bug/1236619/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
