[cifs-protocol] Re: [linux-cifs-client] Linux CIFS performance
lam at synplicity.com
Wed Mar 7 21:28:15 GMT 2007
What is the best practical way to run/setup iozone to compare CIFS/NFS
performance between local drives and Netapp file mounted dirs ?
From: cifs-protocol-bounces+lam=synplicity.com at cifs.org
[mailto:cifs-protocol-bounces+lam=synplicity.com at cifs.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 11:12 AM
To: Steve French
Cc: cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org; linux-cifs-client at lists.samba.org
Subject: [cifs-protocol] Re: [linux-cifs-client] Linux CIFS performance
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 12:41 -0600, Steve French wrote:
> After looking at a few posts complaining about Linux cifs performance
> vs. nfs, Shaggy and I looked at some traces, and Shaggy spotted
> something very important. CIFS was rereading a page in one case in
> which it did not need to, and not marking a page up to date in one place
> (causing unnecessary i/o). The result was a 20 to 30x improvement in
> iozone write/rewrite performance - it does not affect read performance
> or the other four write cases in iozone (or if so, not very much).
> This is a spectacular improvement in write performance. I doubt that it
> would help the dd case mentioned in the earlier nfs related (since dd
> opens the file write only, and typically uses block sizes which are too
> small to be efficient).
Did you try dd? Of the two things my patch does, the part I was trying
to fix was to address writes that were smaller than the page size and
beyond the end of the file. I expect that to help dd with the small
block sizes. The other fix for the bug I stumbled upon probably doesn't
affect dd performance.
I'll try to run a few tests myself.
IBM Linux Technology Center
cifs-protocol mailing list
cifs-protocol at cifs.org
More information about the cifs-protocol