On 6 Jul 2013, at 21:34, Martin Alejandro Paredes Sanchez <mapsw...@prodigy.net.mx> wrote:
> 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 > Wow wow wow, their numbers with SMB seem super low. They claim to get 80Mb/s NFS vs 7Mb SMB. I'm getting 80-100Mbs with samba here with a core i3, 4gb of RAM and a 12tb raidz2 pool on GREEN drives, which are definitely not server grade (replacing them with WD reds, btw). _______________________________________________ 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"
