Hey Andrew, On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:56:04 -0500 Andrew Theurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
great stuff. As you can think, I have never got the chance to run "real" netbench-runs. So I am not very familiar with interpreting the results.... Could you publish more data, like the plot throughput against clients? Any performance data on Samba/Linux is relevant. ;-) Regards, Goetz > I though I'd share some NetBench results on one of our servers. > > Server: > 4 x 1.5 GHz P4, 256K L3, 32MB L4, 2 GB memory > 4 x 1Gbps acenic ethernet > 14 SCSI disks in hardware RAID1 with 128 MB writeback NVRAM > SuSE 8.0, 2.4.18 kernel > Samba 2.2.3a > Ext3 fs > > Clients: > 48 x 866 MHz PIII running Windows 2000 > > Results: > > Baseline 576 Mbps > ext3 data=writeback 623 Mbps > samba smblog=1 673 Mbps > sendfile/zerocopy 801 Mbps > O(1) scheduler 809 Mbps > Evenly affined IRQs 800 Mbps *needed to get process affinity correct > Process affinity 848 Mbps > /proc/sys/net/hll=764 853 Mbps > case sens enforced 895 Mbps > samba spinlocks 912 Mbps > dcache read copy update 923 Mbps (also had 5% idle time) > > I have also achieved 1002 Mbps with ext2. > > Some other things I think may be worth investigating: > > gettimeofday(). Samba calls this a lot, one for every reply I think, to > check for connection timeout. This means we go into kernel mode every > single time we call this, something I'd like to avoid. And I also don't > think we need the resolution of gettimeofday for this. How about some > sort of timer in samba with a 1 second granularity? I admit I have not > thought about how to do this, but there's gotta be a way. > > locking for the samba db. Spin locks got us a little better than > flocks, but again I'd rather not go into kernel mode every time. Has > anyone considered using Rusty Russell's futexes for this? > > Hyperthreading. With 2 physical processors, I can get 25% better > results!!! with 4 physical processors, I only get 2% better. I may be > running into other bottlenecks on the 4 physical/8 logical CPU case, so > I hope there is room for improvement. However there are probably a lot > more 2-way P4 systems out there than 4-way, so I bet this could really > benefit a lot of people out there. > > Anyway, I have a lot of analysis data (kernel profiles mostly) that goes > along with this stuff if anyone is interested in looking at it My > intention was to make some sort of article out of this, so I wanted to > get some feedback from this list. Is this stuff interesting or relevant > to anyone out there? What else would you like to see in terms of samba > on linux performance? > > Thanks, > > Andrew Theurer > > > > >
