> As you can see from the figures they are amazingly > good. So ZFS is not the bottleneck. The Samba values > of Ubuntu where a little bit better compared to > FreeBSB but absolutely unstable. > > So what I see is ZFS is performing well
Yep, I agree. > and Samba or CIFS is performing well also Why? Did you do some measurements to prove this? Are you saying this because "Vista -- FreeBSD (Samba / UFS)" was able to transfer 30 - 40 Mb/sec? > but the combination ZFS > + Samba/CIFS really takes down the performance on my > board. Any hints? Did you do some of the network tests? Is the Solaris driver for the "Realtek 8111DL Gigabit Ethernet" hardware able to send or receive close to 100Mbyte/sec over ethernet? (Note that it is best to use a special tcp benchmark - e.g. ttcp - that doesn't use the hdd as the source or sink of the data) I think we first have to make sure that the individual components (disk, net, zfs, cifs/samba) all perform as expected before we can have a look at the bigger picture with all of the components combined... -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
