On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 02:51:17PM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > I have a system that I'm vetting as a NAS server. It has a 2.0TB XFS > filesystem mounted on /storage and I'm doing benchmarks using nfs3, nfs4, and > samba. I'm testing via iozone by mounting the filesystem from my "nas > client" box and then running iozone on the mounted filesystem. NFS seems > pretty fast - ie, several orders of magnitude faster than samba, and I'm > wondering why, so I'm beseeching the help of the List. :) > > > > server: sama 3.3.8 > > client: Linux CentOS 5.5 cifs mount, "mount -t cifs -o > rsize=32768,wsize=32768 //server/storage /storage" > > Client is on the same LAN as the server, albeit different VLANs. Traffic is > routed through intel gigabit NICs and Cisco Nexus 5000/7000 series switches. > NAS server has a 4x 1gbe 802.3ad port channel set up with the Cisco 7000 > switch, although I've run these tests both with and without the port channel > with very similar results (as I'd expect, since the client is only a single > 1gbe interface to begin with). > > > > (the 32768 numbers are the same as used in the NFS3/NFS4 tests). > > Again, the problem is *markedly* slower performance on CIFS than with NFS, > and I cannot discern why, so I'm assuming it's some kind of samba tuning > issue. I do plan to re-test with samba4, but any recommendations as to a > specific version of samba that I could use which would provide maximum > performance/stability would also be much appreciated.
You might want to try a more recent cifsfs build than the one on CentOS 5.5. It's almost certainly a client issue here, I know Steve and Jeff have been putting work into improving the CIFSFS client performance (Steve and Jeff please comment :-). Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
