I can't speak to this issue in regards to OpenIndiana but CIFS/samba
has historically been much slower than NFS, FTP, and even netatalk,
etc. due to its large metadata overhead. One can observe this in the
wild with a few well time tcpdumps. One thing that might be worth
investigating in this
Gary wrote:
I can't speak to this issue in regards to OpenIndiana but CIFS/samba
has historically been much slower than NFS, FTP, and even netatalk,
etc. due to its large metadata overhead. One can observe this in the
wild with a few well time tcpdumps. One thing that might be worth
I had a bug filed with Sun on Opensolaris long ago (CR 6850837 , P2
utility/filesharing libshare enhancements to address performance and
scalability) and I thought I try OI to see if anything had improved
with recent builds.
I am trying to deploy around 6000 filesystems across 3 pools. Each
pool
On Thu, Apr 21 at 13:53, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
Gary wrote:
I can't speak to this issue in regards to OpenIndiana but CIFS/samba
has historically been much slower than NFS, FTP, and even netatalk,
etc. due to its large metadata overhead. One can observe this in the
wild with a few well time
On Apr 21, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21 at 13:53, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
Gary wrote:
I can't speak to this issue in regards to OpenIndiana but CIFS/samba
has historically been much slower than NFS, FTP, and even netatalk,
etc. due to its large metadata overhead.
Well, there is a difference right there - you are running jumbo frames; I am
not.
-Original Message-
From: Eric D. Mudama [mailto:edmud...@bounceswoosh.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 5:45 PM
To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana
Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] CIFS slow reads but
On Thu, Apr 21 at 18:59, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
Well, there is a difference right there - you are running jumbo frames; I am
not.
Except I'm not running them all the way to the client, and my
networking gear is cheap. The only jumbo link is between my server
and my first switch. If frame
Oh, good point. Not sure what is going on then. My win7-64 box has realtek
NIC, and perf is fine with everything but CIFS. The centos box also has
realtek, IIRC. Odd...
-Original Message-
From: Eric D. Mudama [mailto:edmud...@bounceswoosh.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 7:23 PM
On Apr 21, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Eric D. Mudama edmud...@bounceswoosh.org wrote:
Except I'm not running them all the way to the client, and my
networking gear is cheap. The only jumbo link is between my server
and my first switch. If frame size had a large effect, I'd expect my
MTU1500 clients
On Thu, Apr 21 at 17:56, Gary Driggs wrote:
On Apr 21, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Eric D. Mudama edmud...@bounceswoosh.org wrote:
Except I'm not running them all the way to the client, and my
networking gear is cheap. The only jumbo link is between my server
and my first switch. If frame size had a
An intel pro/1000, unfortunately, it'll be a pain to try it. The centos box
has no pci slots. I'll have to pull my win7 box open and try it there.
Stay tuned...
-Original Message-
From: Gregory Youngblood [mailto:greg...@youngblood.me]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:05 PM
To:
Did both the CentOS and Windows boxes have realtek cards? I don't know if I
missed that detail earlier. I don't know that it will make much of a
difference, though in the past I do know that realtek cards had issues and
sometimes wouldn't perform very well. These days I pretty much stick with
12 matches
Mail list logo
