Re: SV: Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
On 07/06/13 19:51, Leslie Jensen wrote: Smb is slow by design compared to nfs. Sure. As I said, I was expecting lower performance; not *this* lower, however. bye Thanks av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
On 07/07/13 00:52, Adam Vande More wrote: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2013-January/038903.html Thanks Adam. However: I'm using UFS, not ZFS, so the first part is not applicable. I have an nfe card, not an em; so again, the second part does not apply. The only tunable in that driver is hw.nfe.msi_disable and hw.nfe.msix_disable, which I never tried; I guess I could when I have physical access to the box, but again, they are enabled by default and I doubt I would get better performance by disabling MSI[-X]. In addition, I don't think I suffer from a NIC bottleneck, given the speed of NFS and a find shouldn't read the whole files, so shouldn't require a lot of bandwidth. The third section is interesting: still no change, however. This does not suprise me, since I had extensively tried these (and other settings from several Samba howtos) with different values in the past, the difference being always quite negligible. The last thing I'm considering is slowness due to the LDAP backend. This is what I'm currently investigating. All the literature on Samba seems to be quite Linux-centric; that's why I asked on the FreeBSD mailing list whether this could be normal. bye Thanks av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
On 07/05/13 20:42, Terje Elde wrote: On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli m...@netfence.it wrote: Is this normal in your experience? Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first? If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a major factor. Yesterday I did four test: _ SMB find resulting in over 10 minutes first time; _ SMB find resulting in nearly 10 minutes second time; _ NFS find resulting in a little over 1 minute first time; _ NFS find resulting in a little less than 1 minute second time. Today I tried again in reverse order: _ NFS find took 3 minutes; _ NFS find again took 21 seconds; _ SMB find took over 9 minutes; _ SMB find again took again over 9 minutes. So, while caching plays a role, it just isn't it. The server was possibly doing other things, so the above figures might not be that correct; however a difference in the magnitude order is just too big (and deterministic) to be considered random noise. bye Thanks av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
SV: Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
Smb is slow by design compared to nfs. /Leslie Skickat från min Samsung Mobil Originalmeddelande Från: Andrea Venturoli m...@netfence.it Datum: Till: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Rubrik: Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance On 07/05/13 20:42, Terje Elde wrote: On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli m...@netfence.it wrote: Is this normal in your experience? Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first? If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a major factor. Yesterday I did four test: _ SMB find resulting in over 10 minutes first time; _ SMB find resulting in nearly 10 minutes second time; _ NFS find resulting in a little over 1 minute first time; _ NFS find resulting in a little less than 1 minute second time. Today I tried again in reverse order: _ NFS find took 3 minutes; _ NFS find again took 21 seconds; _ SMB find took over 9 minutes; _ SMB find again took again over 9 minutes. So, while caching plays a role, it just isn't it. The server was possibly doing other things, so the above figures might not be that correct; however a difference in the magnitude order is just too big (and deterministic) to be considered random noise. bye Thanks av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
On Saturday 06 July 2013 01:55:31 Andrea Venturoli wrote: On 07/05/13 20:42, Terje Elde wrote: On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli m...@netfence.it wrote: Is this normal in your experience? Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first? If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a major factor. Yesterday I did four test: _ SMB find resulting in over 10 minutes first time; _ SMB find resulting in nearly 10 minutes second time; _ NFS find resulting in a little over 1 minute first time; _ NFS find resulting in a little less than 1 minute second time. Today I tried again in reverse order: _ NFS find took 3 minutes; _ NFS find again took 21 seconds; _ SMB find took over 9 minutes; _ SMB find again took again over 9 minutes. So, while caching plays a role, it just isn't it. The server was possibly doing other things, so the above figures might not be that correct; however a difference in the magnitude order is just too big (and deterministic) to be considered random noise. the problem may be high log level for Samba You should read this http://www.hob-techtalk.com/2009/03/09/nfs-vs-cifs-aka-smb ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
On 6 Jul 2013, at 21:34, Martin Alejandro Paredes Sanchez mapsw...@prodigy.net.mx wrote: On Saturday 06 July 2013 01:55:31 Andrea Venturoli wrote: On 07/05/13 20:42, Terje Elde wrote: On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli m...@netfence.it wrote: Is this normal in your experience? Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first? If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a major factor. Yesterday I did four test: _ SMB find resulting in over 10 minutes first time; _ SMB find resulting in nearly 10 minutes second time; _ NFS find resulting in a little over 1 minute first time; _ NFS find resulting in a little less than 1 minute second time. Today I tried again in reverse order: _ NFS find took 3 minutes; _ NFS find again took 21 seconds; _ SMB find took over 9 minutes; _ SMB find again took again over 9 minutes. So, while caching plays a role, it just isn't it. The server was possibly doing other things, so the above figures might not be that correct; however a difference in the magnitude order is just too big (and deterministic) to be considered random noise. the problem may be high log level for Samba You should read this http://www.hob-techtalk.com/2009/03/09/nfs-vs-cifs-aka-smb Wow wow wow, their numbers with SMB seem super low. They claim to get 80Mb/s NFS vs 7Mb SMB. I'm getting 80-100Mbs with samba here with a core i3, 4gb of RAM and a 12tb raidz2 pool on GREEN drives, which are definitely not server grade (replacing them with WD reds, btw). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Andrea Venturoli m...@netfence.it wrote: Hello. Sorry to ask here: maybe it's not the best place, but it might be a start (the client and server are both FreeBSD). The server exports the same directory via NFS and via SMB. I'd expect some performance penalty when using SMB, but: find /nfs_mounted_dir /dev/null takes more or less 1 minute; find /smb_mounted_dir /dev/null takes nearly 10 minutes. Is this normal in your experience? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2013-January/038903.html -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
Hello. Sorry to ask here: maybe it's not the best place, but it might be a start (the client and server are both FreeBSD). The server exports the same directory via NFS and via SMB. I'd expect some performance penalty when using SMB, but: find /nfs_mounted_dir /dev/null takes more or less 1 minute; find /smb_mounted_dir /dev/null takes nearly 10 minutes. Is this normal in your experience? bye Thanks av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli m...@netfence.it wrote: Is this normal in your experience? Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first? If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a major factor. Terje ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
