Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:36:46 -0500 | From | Jim Nance <> | Subject | smbfs 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/
| |