Samba is slower than ftp, but not to that degree. I usually get ~30MB/s using FTP and ~25MB/s using SAMBA. If you look at a graph of the network activity, the FTP transfer is more consistent. The SAMBA graph will fluctuate much more.
(i'm currently using VSFTPD 2.0.1 and SAMBA 3.0.7, I have noticed speed differences between the different ftp daemons. VSFTPD has been about 5mb/s faster than proftpd for me. ) James Kuhns wrote: > 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 >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
