[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: kern/37025: mount_smbfs write performance is <censored>
The following reply was made to PR kern/37025; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: David Holland <dholland-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: kern/37025: mount_smbfs write performance is <censored>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 03:03:19 +0000
(sent to gnats instead of gnats-bugs)
From: "Martin S. Weber" <Ephaeton%gmx.net@localhost>
To: NetBSD Problem Report DB Administrator <gnats%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:17:03 -0500
Fwiw, I started my first measurements finally. As I've noted before, there's
some unrelated problems I'm facing, which should be fixed this way or another.
I probably should open separate PRs for them:
- a process in smbwrq often cannot be killed (even with -9) before the WHOLE
writing is done.
- sometimes transfers stall. I have to cd in the dir in question (hmm or
on the mounted share?) and/or do an ls in that directory to get the transfer
to pick up pace again.
First results show that (not surprisingly I guess (even though I reported
this BEFORE 4.0 :p)) NetBSD-5.0's kernel-backed mount_smbfs performs
old-school: putting packets on horse back, exchanging horses at a couple of
stations and losing some of them. Performance peaks at about 1.5MiB/s, but
at times is as low as 600KiB/s - smbclient works at the network maximum.
Another observation (via xosview's NET display) is that smbclient uses a lot
less sent packets when reading from the share in contrast to mount_smbfs.
Some earlier observation in this PR, that more RTT suffering comes into play
with the native mount, seems to be backed up by this observation. I still
have some things to do here, especially measure -current, and probably other
means of getting a file onto the samba share; measure the RTT to see if you
can relate it to the results; probably some netstat stats for mount_smbfs
vs. smbclient vs. -current (if that is performing any better, which I doubt:
why should it now, after a few months, have been improved, if it hasn't for
ALL THESE YEARS before).
Main Index |
Thread Index |