A couple of quick thoughts. Have you tried benchmarking the setup
	with an ftp via the same machines, and with two clients copying
	over AFP simultaneously?
	Also, make sure you are running netatalk-asun.

-- 
		David/absolute		-- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --


On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Byan, Stephen wrote:

> I've just set up a Quadra 950 I found at the town dump as our home server.
> It came with 24 MB of memory. I've added a 4GB Seagate Barracuda as the root
> disk and a 36GB Quantum 7200 RPM SCSI disk as the /Users disk.
>
> The machine is running a mash of NetBSD 1.5.2 kernel with 1.5 user-space
> (haven't had time to re-install since the Wasabi 1.5.2 CD showed up, and not
> going to download all of user-space on a 56K dialup). I'm using the built-in
> 10 Mbit ethernet, and installed whatever version of netatalk that I got from
> the package installer.
>
> I hope to use this machine as the central repository for our MP3's, but I'm
> a bit worried about the performance of the Apple File Protocol in netatalk.
> When I did a finder copy of our MP3 collection to the NetBSD server, I only
> got a data-rate of about 333 KBytes/sec. The source machine was a PowerMac
> 7200 with a 266 MHz G3 and 256 MB DRAM running OS 9.1, over 100baseT
> ethernet to a 10/100 switch, then to the Quadra 950 running NetBSD. Since
> the source machine was running OS 9.1, I presume I was running AFP over
> TCP/IP.
>
> I had hoped to see something closer to the 1MB/sec theoretical maximum for
> 10baseT ethernet. I'm a bit worried about trying to serve multiple MP3
> streams using AFP on this machine. The NetBSD machine seemed relatively idle
> during the transfer - CPU and memory utilization were low (single digits),
> and disk I/O's were steady at about 16 per second, which should be only
> about 15% to 20% utilization for the disk. Is the bottleneck in the 10 Mb/s
> ethernet port on the Quadra 950 - would I get substantially better
> performance if I hunted down a 100baseT Nubus card? Or is there a
> performance bug in the 1.5.2 NCR driver?
>
> Or is there some other bottleneck? I'm surprised the CPU utilization wasn't
> higher - maybe I misread the vmstat display.
>
>
> On another note, I had some difficulty installing 1.5 on this machine, as
> the Installer apparently doesn't support partitions greater than 500 MB. It
> will install on a 1 GB or a 2 GB partition, but running fsck after booting
> shows a terribly corrupted file system. The 1.5.1 Installer shows the same
> behavior. I ended up creating 500 MB partitions for root, /var, and /usr in
> order to install, and using the remaining 2.5 GB on the root disk for
> nothing in particular. Is this a well-known limitation of the Installer?
>
>
> TIA.
>
> Regards,
> -Steve
>
> Steve Byan
> <smb@world.std.com>
>