On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 02:25:41AM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote: > > > > To what extent do people feel that these are relevant to a CIFS benchmark, > > and what other areas have I missed. > > Well in defense of NetBench (I can't believe I'm saying this :-) > it doesn't attempt to give full coverage of SMB, that would be > the job of a conformance tester. It only tries to shovel data > to the server as fast as possible, trying to create "realistic" > capacity situations. > > Just having a simple, Open Source/Free Software benchmark that > would do the same would be a good start, we can argue about > how to extend it once we have buy in that the new benchmark > makes a good NetBench replacement (ie. can we get the magazines > to run it instead of NetBench).
You have just reminded me that I need to put the source up somewhere ... I need to move the latency stuff to long long so I avoid negative numbers, but I should do that next week after Disney! Regards ----- Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
