Subject: Re: Why is Samba so much slower on NetBSD than FreeBSD?
To: Olaf Seibert <email@example.com>
From: Andreas Wrede <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/23/1998 14:16:57
On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:43:53 +0200 Olaf Seibert writes
> "Calvin Vette (IT- Borders Online)" <CVETTE@borders.com> wrote:
> > Once I decoded your names :-) -
> ;-) The theme here is (mainly dutch) polders. That's what you get when a
> company is called Polderland.
> > 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 poin
> > is, it's not a very scientific comparison.
> I know, but it's the machines I have to test with. And I thought that
> raw machine speed would not be too much of influence anyway since,
> according to top, samba uses only a very small part of available CPU
> anyway. Perhaps it depends a lot on peak performance though, I can't see
> that with top of course. Same with raw TCP speed: that seems ok when
> tested separately.
Just to add a datapoint. On a i486/50 EISA machine with a 3c509 ISA card,
Adaptec 1740 SCSI and NetBSD 1.3.2, I see the following samba performance:
Peer to from
PII/300-Win95 620 666
P/100-WIN95 373 878
PII/300-NetBSD-current 540 691
All "test" were performed while the i486/50 was running mail, news and web
services with a load avg of about 2.
The samba version is 1.9.18p10 and the only special setting in smb.conf
is 'socket options = TCP_NODELAY'
Andreas Wrede Planix, Inc.
email@example.com Networking, System Administration, Consulting
http://www.planix.com Toronto, Ontario, Canada