lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subjectsmbfs caching
Hello All,
I have an application that does a lot of file system I/O, and it can
be run in a parallel mode where different machines share data via a
networked file system. Getting good performance and scaling in parallel
mode requires good performance from both the filesystem clients and servers.
Since the Linux NFS server is not that great I decided to try using
samba and smbfs instead. To my supprise NFS performed significantly better
than the SMB setup. Here are the results:

penguin1> grep 'Total check time' *.sum
LOCAL.sum: Total check time = 3:42:33 User=11771.93 Sys=1063.53 Mem=206.735
NFS.sum: Total check time = 4:44:43 User=11836.13 Sys=1441.40 Mem=206.750
SAMBA.sum: Total check time = 6:11:53 User=11974.19 Sys=2272.34 Mem=206.750

For the NFS and SMB tests the program ran on 1 machine which was connected to
an identical machine via 100BaseT ethernet which ran the server. The results
when running on a local file system are also included for comparison.

One reason these results supprise me so much is that I thought that the raw
speed of samba was better than what you could get from NFS (I have not
verified that). This leaves me wondering if Linux'es smbfs does not do much
caching.

Would anyone like to comment on this?

Thanks,

Jim

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Nance Avant! Corporation
(919) 941-6655 Do you have sweet iced tea? jim_nance@avanticorp.com
No, but there's sugar on the table.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.061 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site