[SLE] Fw: samba overhead comparing to other file server
Any comments for the following? ----- Original Message ----- From: Philip Chan <philipc@i-cable.com> Newsgroups: comp.protocols.smb Sent: Sunday, November 28, 1999 12:02 AM Subject: samba overhead comparing to other file server software
Hi,
I recently installed samba 2.0.6 onto my linux box, did a comparison on sending up the same 80MB directory to Netware, Win98 server and the samba on linux. The samba server ran slowest then I used a network monitoring tool to see what's going on, surprisingly I found the sent bytes and frame count for the samba trial run almost doubled for others. I presume the extra bytes and frames were network overheads of samba, so are there any tunable parameter(s) for lowering such overheads?
-Philip
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Philip Chan wrote:
Any comments for the following?
----- Original Message ----- From: Philip Chan <philipc@i-cable.com> Newsgroups: comp.protocols.smb Sent: Sunday, November 28, 1999 12:02 AM Subject: samba overhead comparing to other file server software
Hi,
I recently installed samba 2.0.6 onto my linux box, did a comparison on sending up the same 80MB directory to Netware, Win98 server and the samba on linux. The samba server ran slowest then I used a network monitoring tool to see what's going on, surprisingly I found the sent bytes and frame count for the samba trial run almost doubled for others. I presume the extra bytes and frames were network overheads of samba, so are there any tunable parameter(s) for lowering such overheads?
-Philip
For a scientific analysis, there is not enough information. Did the three OSes run on IDENTICAL hardware? What about network interference? What about background jobs? Was the client the same? There is a substantial amount of laboratory evidence that shows when you remove all of the variables, such as caching, network traffic, and hardware, Samba is faster than Win95/98/NT. The only one to dispute that is Microsoft. Even Microsoft's lap dog, Ziff Davis, supports this finding. In my own testing, with identical hardware and controlled network conditions, I found Samba 1.9 to be 50% faster than Windows when transferring a single 25MB file (actually, I let my networking students discover this, I just sat back and watched). Samba 2.x is supposed to be faster than 1.9, so I think there are significant errors in your testing. Realistically, in a production environment, most files transferred are MUCH smaller than 80MB. In my day job, all files are under 5MB, most are under 2MB. I'm sure the data transfer performance will be different for different file sizes. -- George Toft http://www.georgetoft.com -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Hi George, The hardware involved are identical, the same client and server machine were used throughout the test. For the Win98-to-Win98 trial, the 80 MB directory sum up to 87,450,775 send bytes over 89107 frames, these number look reasonable to me as the extra 7 MB seem to be packet overheads introduced by its header. For the Win98-to-Samba trial the sent frames and bytes almost doubled the previous figures, I believe that was because the samba server used smaller frame size thus require more packets for sending up the same amount of data. I'm not saying samba on linux is slower than Windows/Netware [or vice versa]. When I compile samba I just accepted all defaults, I just want to see if there are any ways to optimize my samba server performance. -Philip ----- Original Message ----- From: George Toft <grtoft@yahoo.com> To: suse-linux-e <suse-linux-e@suse.com> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 1999 3:02 AM Subject: Re: [SLE] Fw: samba overhead comparing to other file server
Philip Chan wrote:
Any comments for the following?
----- Original Message ----- From: Philip Chan <philipc@i-cable.com> Newsgroups: comp.protocols.smb Sent: Sunday, November 28, 1999 12:02 AM Subject: samba overhead comparing to other file server software
Hi,
I recently installed samba 2.0.6 onto my linux box, did a comparison
on
sending up the same 80MB directory to Netware, Win98 server and the samba on linux. The samba server ran slowest then I used a network monitoring tool to see what's going on, surprisingly I found the sent bytes and frame count for the samba trial run almost doubled for others. I presume the extra bytes and frames were network overheads of samba, so are there any tunable parameter(s) for lowering such overheads?
-Philip
For a scientific analysis, there is not enough information. Did the three OSes run on IDENTICAL hardware? What about network interference? What about background jobs? Was the client the same?
There is a substantial amount of laboratory evidence that shows when you remove all of the variables, such as caching, network traffic, and hardware, Samba is faster than Win95/98/NT. The only one to dispute that is Microsoft. Even Microsoft's lap dog, Ziff Davis, supports this finding.
In my own testing, with identical hardware and controlled network conditions, I found Samba 1.9 to be 50% faster than Windows when transferring a single 25MB file (actually, I let my networking students discover this, I just sat back and watched). Samba 2.x is supposed to be faster than 1.9, so I think there are significant errors in your testing.
Realistically, in a production environment, most files transferred are MUCH smaller than 80MB. In my day job, all files are under 5MB, most are under 2MB. I'm sure the data transfer performance will be different for different file sizes.
-- George Toft http://www.georgetoft.com
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Philip Chan wrote:
Hi George,
The hardware involved are identical, the same client and server machine were used throughout the test. For the Win98-to-Win98 trial, the 80 MB directory sum up to 87,450,775 send bytes over 89107 frames, these number look reasonable to me as the extra 7 MB seem to be packet overheads introduced by its header. For the Win98-to-Samba trial the sent frames and bytes almost doubled the previous figures, I believe that was because the samba server used smaller frame size thus require more packets for sending up the same amount of data.
I'm not saying samba on linux is slower than Windows/Netware [or vice versa]. When I compile samba I just accepted all defaults, I just want to see if there are any ways to optimize my samba server performance.
-Philip
Hi Philip, there are a lot of other options in smb.conf that might speed things up, like some socket options. Your question is probably better asked in the samba mailing list, or rather search the archives on www.samba.org. I used the following smb.conf (global section). I collected all speed up tips, but don't use samba anymore, due to lack of clients. (What the heck is "Windows"? ;-)) Juergen [global] workgroup = Linux comment = Samba-1.9.18p8 guest account = pcguest share modes = yes auto services= homes printers interfaces=192.168.42.243/255.255.255.0 browseable=yes fake oplocks=yes getwd cache=yes encrypt passwords = yes # socket options=TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_SNDBUF=8192 SO_RCVBUF=8192 read size = 65535 read prediction =True read raw=yes write raw=yes shared mem size = 10000000 max xmit=65535 wins support=no keep alive = 30 os level = 2 security = user printing = bsd printcap name = /etc/printcap load printers = yes -- =========================================== __ _ Juergen Braukmann juergen.braukmann@gmx.de| -o)/ / (_)__ __ ____ __ Tel: 0201-743648 dk4jb@db0qs.#nrw.deu.eu | /\\ /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / ===========================================_\_v __/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Philip Chan wrote:
Hi George,
The hardware involved are identical, the same client and server machine were used throughout the test. For the Win98-to-Win98 trial, the 80 MB directory sum up to 87,450,775 send bytes over 89107 frames, these number look reasonable to me as the extra 7 MB seem to be packet overheads introduced by its header. For the Win98-to-Samba trial the sent frames and bytes almost doubled the previous figures, I believe that was because the samba server used smaller frame size thus require more packets for sending up the same amount of data.
I doubt it. If this is ethernet, the frame size is 1518. Since this is at the data link layer, the OS would be irrelevant. Without looking at the results of a network analyzer (like ethereal), I have no idea why you have 2x frames. -- George Toft http://www.georgetoft.com -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
participants (3)
-
grtoft＠yahoo.com -
juergen.braukmann＠ruhr-west.de -
philipc＠i-cable.com