On Nov 20, 2008 2:22pm, tico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Answers to your questions are inline /w the question
with some big <! - snip -!> in attempt to reduce noise.
Perhaps I should have phrased my comment better, or possibly I'm wrong altogether, but I don't see where you showed that the problem was with *Samba* throughput (which would obviously be directed to ports@ or even [EMAIL PROTECTED] as you state) versus hardware/OS/configuration.
Good point. I guess then it depends on how you look at it. My "performance issue" was noticed from the perspective of samba, but not likely samba's fault at all.
What network throughput can your system handle? What network and disk throughput can your clients handle?
I don't know. Unless you recommend something else, I'll try iPerf and command line ftp from the windows box to my OpenBSD storage server and see what the numbers are like.
What disk I/O throughput can your system handle?
Based on the examples in your example from your previous email: # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/home/test bs=1024k count=5000 5000+0 records in 5000+0 records out 5242880000 bytes transferred in 100.006 secs (52425156 bytes/sec) 1m40.12s real 0m0.03s user 1m16.59s system # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/home/test2 bs=1024k count=500 500+0 records in 500+0 records out 524288000 bytes transferred in 9.856 secs (53193127 bytes/sec) 0m9.96s real 0m0.00s user 0m7.64s system # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/home/test3 bs=1024k count=50 50+0 records in 50+0 records out 52428800 bytes transferred in 0.971 secs (53964967 bytes/sec) 0m1.06s real 0m0.00s user 0m0.77s system And in case you want to know: # cat /etc/fstab /dev/wd0a / ffs rw,softdep 1 1 /dev/wd0d /mnt/wd0d ffs rw,nodev,nosuid,async 1 2 /dev/wd0e /mnt/wd0e ffs rw,nodev,nosuid,async 1 2 /dev/wd0f /mnt/wd0f ffs rw,nodev,nosuid,async 1 2 /dev/wd0g /mnt/wd0g ffs rw,nodev,nosuid,async 1 2 Why async? Although it's a storage server, the data being saved isn't important enough to warrant special care. Due-ly noted however that the use of soft-dep would likely be less resource intensive.
What network and disk throughput can your clients handle?
Don't do enough client to client copying to know. Though I do remember making a 2Gig MP2 tv recording from client to client and not even consider a performance issue many months ago.
2. What performance comparison is showing you that the write throughput
that
you *are* achieving is bad?
Again, this is from a samba perspective. After initial setup and an untweaked smb.conf file a standard windows to samba server file copy just took too long, something like 170meg file copy was estimated to take 2 minutes before the copy was supposed to complete. That's about 1.42MB/sec file transfer rate. (hard, exact numbers are currently impossible to grab @ the moment because I am not in the network environment that exhibits the problem). How can I make a comparison such as that without the proper hardware on hand? (IE other GigE Nic for OpenBSD) - - suffice it to say that that time constraints are currently in play that prevents such an acquisition and installation. <!- snip !->
What consistently slow speed did you get on average running a specific
test,
and what better speed did you get running the exact same test after changing each setting one-by-one?
Didn't. I jumped on the bandwagon for a software solution I could have with acceptable immediate results without taking the time for a thorough test. Again time plays a factor there.
<!- snip !->
You'll notice, hopefully, that there are no "tweaks" added to any
relevant conf file, Oh I noticed.
because the defaults just plain work, and I've not been able to show a
bottleneck
in real-world performance that is solvable through hackery ... and most importantly, the customer is happy and I don't have to write even more documentation for the next sysadmin that walks through the door.
That's why you get paid the big bucks for such consulting work and I don't consult.
BTW, if you'd rather move this discussion off list or to misc that's fine with me.
and of course, thanks for your input. Enjoy the weekend!
