Once I decoded your names :-) - 

You've got NetBSD running on the slowest machines, with ISA Ethernet cards.
This is going to make a huge difference. And while you didn't mention it,
the amount of RAM could make a difference in low memory conditions. My point
is, it's not a very scientific comparison.

I'd recommend testing a little more scientifically to get a real comparison
- try swapping the NetBSD 1.3.2 drives into the NT box (Proc & RAM). 

If it's just raw networking speed you're after, try using NetBSD current
with UVM. (A release since the beginning of September). Chuck's pretty much
eliminated excessive internal copying, which goes a long way towards
improving Network I/O (and in UVM's case, all I/O).

> ----------
> From: 	Manuel Bouyer[SMTP:bouyer@antioche.lip6.fr]
> Sent: 	Thursday, October 22, 1998 1:14 PM
> To: 	Olaf Seibert
> Cc: 	current-users@netbsd.org
> Subject: 	Re: Why is Samba so much slower on NetBSD than FreeBSD?
> 
> On Oct 22, Olaf Seibert wrote
> > 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:
> > 
> > [...]
> >
> > 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
> > 	 (RealTek 8029)
> > 
> > connected with a 10 Mbit/s ethernet (coax).
> > 
> > [...]
> >
> > 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...
> > 
> 
> I would tend to blame the 3c509 for this. I've got tons of problem with
> them,
> because of their really small fifo. Could you try another ethernet
> board (ne2000 are good, but a DMA-capable board would be better for
> a server).
> In a general manner, I now tries to avoid 3com networks adapters (althouh
> their other networks products seems good).
> 
> --
> Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI.           Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
> --
>