On Saturday 06 July 2013 01:55:31 Andrea Venturoli wrote: > On 07/05/13 20:42, Terje Elde wrote: > > On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli <m...@netfence.it> wrote: > >> Is this normal in your experience? > > > > Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first? > > > > If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a > > major factor. > > Yesterday I did four test: > _ SMB find resulting in over 10 minutes first time; > _ SMB find resulting in nearly 10 minutes second time; > _ NFS find resulting in a little over 1 minute first time; > _ NFS find resulting in a little less than 1 minute second time. > > > Today I tried again in reverse order: > _ NFS find took 3 minutes; > _ NFS find again took 21 seconds; > _ SMB find took over 9 minutes; > _ SMB find again took again over 9 minutes. > > So, while caching plays a role, it just isn't it. > The server was possibly doing other things, so the above figures might > not be that correct; however a difference in the magnitude order is just > too big (and deterministic) to be considered random noise. >
the problem may be high log level for Samba You should read this http://www.hob-techtalk.com/2009/03/09/nfs-vs-cifs-aka-smb _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
