Jeremy Chadwick pisze:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:02:33AM +0200, Bartosz Stec wrote:
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Bartosz Stec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081003 07:23] wrote:
Hello again :)
With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when
copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it
normal?
FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Sat Sep 6 01:52:12 CEST 2008
fxp0: <Intel 82801DB (ICH4) Pro/100 Ethernet> port 0xc800-0xc83f mem
0xe1021000-0xe1021fff irq 20 at device 8.0 on pci1
# ifconfig fxp0
fxp0: flags=9843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,LINK0,MULTICAST>
metric 0 mtu 1500
options=8<VLAN_MTU>
ether 00:20:ed:42:87:13
inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>)
status: active
BTW overall SAMBA performance still sucks on 7.1-pre as much as on
RELENG_5 ...:( - 7.5 MB/s peak.
7.5MB is 75% effeciency of a 100mbit card. Not amazing, but
not "sucks".
Where do you see faster performance?
Between windows machines on the same hardware or linux server?
It sucks because it is a peak performance. About 5-6 MB/s average. I
tried polling only because I found some suggestions on mailing lists,
that it could improve performance with SAMBA on FreeBSD. As you see at
the top of this thread - not in my case :) I also tried sysctl tunings,
and smb.conf settings, also suggested on maling lists, with no or very
little improvements noticed. Most of suggestions unfortunately end with
"change OS to Linux if you want to use SAMBA". I think I will try to
change NIC to 1Gbit - hope that helps :) Or maybe there's some "FreeBSD
and SAMBA tuning guide" which I didn't found?
Can you please test network I/O using something like netperf or one of
the other network-benchmark tools and not things like NFS or Samba
which rely on disk I/O and other aspects?
OK
It was first time i was using nerperf so I'm not sure I did it
correctly. I installed netperf port on SAMBA serwer (IP 192.168.0.2),
and also download windows binary to windows xp machine (IP
192.168.0.10). All tests ran for one minute.
First test - netperf on FreeBSD and netserver on Windows:
# netperf -l 60 -t TCP_STREAM -H 192.168.0.10
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
192.168.0.10 (192.168.0.10) port 0 AF_INET
Recv Send Send
Socket Socket Message Elapsed
Size Size Size Time Throughput
bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
8192 32768 32768 60.00 93.97
# netperf -l 60 -t TCP_SENDFILE -H 192.168.0.10
TCP SENDFILE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
192.168.0.10 (192.168.0.10) port 0 AF_INET
Recv Send Send
Socket Socket Message Elapsed
Size Size Size Time Throughput
bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
8192 32768 32768 60.00 93.45
# netperf -l 60 -t TCP_RR -H 192.168.0.10
TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
192.168.0.10 (192.168.0.10) port 0 AF_INET
Local /Remote
Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans.
Send Recv Size Size Time Rate
bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec
32768 65536 1 1 60.00 2433.99
8192 8192
# ifconfig fxp0
fxp0: flags=9843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,LINK0,MULTICAST>
metric 0 mtu 1500
options=8<VLAN_MTU>
ether 00:20:ed:42:87:13
inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>)
status: active
Second test - netperf on Windows and netserver on FreeBSD:
Unfortunately won't run:
C:\software>netperf-a4 -l 60 -H 192.168.0.2
TCP STREAM TEST to 192.168.0.2
recv_response: partial response received: 0 bytes
Hovewer, thanks to Alfred Perlstein who send mefollowing link:
http://www.mavetju.org/mail/view_message.php?list=freebsd-net&id=755111&thread=no&tag=yes,
I set SO_SNBUF and SO_RCVBUF in smb.conf to 2920. Without any additional
tuning in sysctl I now got about 8MB/s which is *much* better result
than before. It still could be better than that if I am reading netpertf
results correctly :)
Thanks Alfred!
--
Bartosz Stec
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
