Meant to ask in my last post, does anyone have any ideas about that anomaly I'm seeing?
I'm still leaning towards samba as the culprit, I'm almost positive I can rule out I/O issues. I designed the benchmark suite to perform transfers in two protocols in both directions specifically to help isolate issues like this. Since performing a "pull" in both protocols reads from the same data set on the XP box, writes to the same location on the Red Hat box, sends traffic through the same NICs and the FTP GET's throughput is good, shouldn't the SAMBA PULL's throughput be just as good (relative to the protocol overhead involved)? If that's the case, then the only thing I can see it being is an issue with samba. James > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Kuhns > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 11:46 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: 1000Mb vs. 100Mb benchmark anomaly was > RE:[brlug-general]networking ignorance > > I benchmarked the "raw" speed using ttcp and a windows port > of ttcp called wsttcp before I benchmarked the file transfers > (I didn't post those results). I used the -s option in ttcp > to take the drives out of the equation as much as possible. > Throughput averaged ~11.4MB/s over 100Mb and ~60.4MB/s over > 1000Mb (no matter which direction). > > I purposely added the overhead of the transfer protocols and > I/O into the benchmark stats because I wanted a more > realistic picture of what kind of improvement 1000Mb gave me > when transfering files (the primary reason I went to 1000Mb). > > The "raw" speed numbers were neat to have but they didn't > give me enough data about the specific task I was planning to > use the network for. > According to the "raw" stats the 1000Mb is ~5 times faster > than 100Mb, when in actuallity I'm only going to see it > running ~2-3 times faster when I'm using it (unless I'm > pulling through samba). The protocol and I/O are the > limiting factors over 1000Mb whereas over 100Mb the network > speed is the limiting factor. > > James > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of -ray > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 10:49 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: 1000Mb vs. 100Mb benchmark anomaly was RE: > > [brlug-general]networking ignorance > > > > > > The other important (IMO) thing about using ttcp is that it > cuts out > > disk and I/O related bottlenecks, so you really are only > testing your > > "raw" > > network speed. > > > > ray > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Shannon Roddy wrote: > > > > > If you want to do some "raw" benchmarking, you should look > > into nttcp. > > > This will give you your "theoretical" max on the network. > > We use it > > > all the time to test just about everything. The advantage > > is that it > > > will cut out the overhead of higher protocols like samba, > ftp, etc. > > > and give you a true view of the network speed rather than > > the protocol > > > speed. > > > > > > http://www.leo.org/~elmar/nttcp/ > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 03:03:47 -0500, James Kuhns > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I went ahead and rolled out the 1000Mb network this > > weekend. Came > > > > up with a procedure to attempt to benchmark the file copy > > > > performance between my two main machines before and after > > the roll > > > > out. I basically used both ftp and samba mounts to > > transfer files > > > > between the two machines on my net. Got a puzzling > > anomaly with the benchmark stats. > > > > > > > > It looks like a samba file copy (RH 9 box -> WinXP SP2) is way > > > > slower on the 1000Mb than it was on the 100Mb (the 100Mb > > looks to be > > > > about 1.5 times faster than the 1000Mb), everything > else is about > > > > what I expected (~2 to 3 times faster, with ftp being > > significantly > > > > faster than samba). I reran the benchmark and got > basically the > > > > same results so I did a few copies by hand and got > > roughly the same as the benchmark. > > > > > > > > Anyone know what could cause this? I'm thinking maybe an old > > > > version of samba (I think it's at 3.0.5 and the one on > > the box is only at 2.2.8a)... > > > > The RH box is about to be wiped and Woody put on it, I'll > > rerun the > > > > benchmark afterwards and see if the anomaly is still there. > > > > > > > > Here's a link to the benchmark procedure and the last set > > of results > > > > http://www.kuhns-la.com:9080/netbenchmark.html - notice > the PULL > > > > stats in the "Results: SAMBA File Copy Throughput in > > MB/s" section, > > > > averaged 5.774 MB/s on 100Mb and only 3.868 MB/s on > 1000Mb. ?????? > > > > > > > > Sorry for the messy html - I was using Excel to compute > > the stats so > > > > I just exported it from Excel as html. > > > > > > > > If anyone wants the benchmark scripts let me know. > > > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > General mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > General mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > > > > > > -- > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > Ray DeJean > http://www.r-a-y.org > > Systems Engineer Southeastern Louisiana > University > > IBM Certified Specialist AIX Administration, AIX Support > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > General mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >
