Hi Volker, Thank you for your help. I will try what you propose as soon as I get to the machines. But, to be honest, I don't think, the hardware is the bottleneck. The RAID controller and the NIC in the server sit on a different PCI bus and each one has its interrupt hooked to a different CPU. Appart from that, as I've mentioned in the previous post, I can saturate the network when copying files that are cached on the server - but only as long as there are several pending requests - with only one I get just those 30MBs or so (one tcp session vs. couple of them). I will do some more benchmarks next week, post the smb.conf and tcp/ip stack config.
Regards Ales On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:48:53 +0100 (CET) Volker Lendecke <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 05:54:11PM +0100, Aleš Bláha wrote: > > Both computers run Gentoo Linux 2008, kernel 2.6.25-r9, > > server runs Samba 3.0.33, client mount.cifs 3.0.30. The > > underlying filesystem for Samba is Ext3 with xattr and > > acls. I wasn't able to break 32MB/s (250Mbps) transfer > > speed neither reading nor writing to the server. The disk > > subsystem of the server is capable of 60MB/s and generaly > > the hardware is not the bottleneck. Neither is the network > > - the bw_tcp from LMbench suite shows around 108MB/s with > > 1500b messages, which is what I would expect from GbE & > > TCP/IP. I've been tinkering with > > In a test I did lately it made a huge difference if I just > did raw TCP benchmarks, raw disk benchmarks or a combined > one. The test I used was > > netcat -l -p 9999 > diskfile > > on the receiving end and > > netcat <server-ip> 9999 <diskfile > > on the sending end. This made my hardware which would > otherwise happily saturate gigE crawl down to something like > 50MB/sec. Can you try that? > > Volker > -- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
