Subject: Why is Samba so much slower on NetBSD than FreeBSD?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Olaf Seibert <email@example.com>
Date: 10/22/1998 17:48:24
We're using a NetBSD machine (polder) as a file server, with Samba. For
some reason, this is a lot slower than a NT machine (wormer) we also
have, and FreeBSD (purmer). A small table might give an indication of
what sort of differences I'm talking about:
from \ to bijlmer polder purmer
wormer 850 830 940
bijlmer 785 70 45
polder 120 2200 140
purmer 750 720 15385
(speed in kilobytes/sec, approx, measured with smbclient copying a file
of 3.166.720 bytes (netscape.exe) to /dev/null, multiple times)
Hardware is diverse:
wormer: NT 3.50, Pentium 166, SCSI disks, pci ne2000 clone
bijlmer: NetBSD 1.3.2, 486 66, SCSI disk, 3c509 ethernet
polder: NetBSD 1.2.1, Pentium 133, SCSI disks, 3c509 ethernet
purmer: FreeBSD 2.2.7, AMD-K6 300, IDE disk, NE2000 PCI Ethernet
connected with a 10 Mbit/s ethernet (coax).
Note especially the incredibly low speed from bijlmer to polder, both
NetBSD. It's not the speed of the machines that ought to matter here
(although it varies wildly), since samba uses only a few %CPU, and raw
TCP speed is as expected. I also conclude that it is the server that
makes the big difference, not the client, except in the case of loopback
Why o why is NetBSD so slow here? I am positively dieing to get rid of
that stupid NT box, it's causing so much trouble (not to mention
expenses), but it does serve files quickly...
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert - firstname.lastname@example.org. ---- Unauthorized duplication,
\X/ .kun.nl ---- while sometimes necessary, is never as good as the real thing.