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
>   t
> > 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.
andreas@planix.com         Networking, System Administration, Consulting
http://www.planix.com      Toronto, Ontario, Canada