Mac OS X SAMBA 2.0.3 time test
Marc DeBonis
Marc.DeBonis at vt.edu
Wed Jun 23 20:47:18 GMT 1999
I'm not sure if this is the right Samba list to send this data to, but I
thought it might be interesting for samba people to look at. Note the
brain dead performance with Windows 98 and Samba 2.0.3 on a 100MB pipe. :(
--snip--
SMB/CIFS time trials
-------------------
Goal: To do file transfer time tests between NT servers native SMB/CIFS
services and
that of Mac OSX Samba SMB/CIFS services. Estimated results is that Samba
is ~25%
slower than NT server native. Using NT and 98 clients.
-------------------
Machine A
DELL 4300
P2-400
128MB RAM
9GB RAID 5 HD 32MB cache
SCSI
NT SRV 4.0 SP5
Machine B
Mac G3
PPC 750 400MHZ
256MB RAM
9GB HD
SCSI
MAC OSX 1.0.1
SAMBA 2.0.3
Machine C
Homemade
P-100
32MB RAM
18GB HD
SCSI
NT SRV 4.0 SP4
Machine D
IBM Thinkpad 600
P2-266
96MB
4GB HD
ATA IDE
Windows 98
-------------------
Package 1
14 files
~10MB each
126MB total
Package 2
15 files
~5MB each
60.2MB total
Package 3
31 files
~1MB each
41.8MB total
Package 4
47 files
~4MB each
214MB total
-------------------
Lingo:
X write Y to Z (from machine X paste directory containing package Y to
machine Z)
X read Y from Z (from machine X copy directory containing package Y from
machine Z)
-------------------
Private 10MB shared ethernet subnet Private 100MB shared ethernet subnet
[ client writes to server ] [ client writes to server ]
C write 1 to A - 130 sec C write 1 to A - 65 sec (~25% net util)
C write 1 to B - 130 sec C write 1 to B - 27 sec (~35% net util)
C write 2 to B - 60 sec C write 2 to B - 14 sec (same %s)
C write 2 to A - 60 sec C write 2 to A - 40 sec
C write 3 to A - 45 sec C write 3 to A - 20 sec
C write 3 to B - 45 sec C write 3 to B - 11 sec
[ client reads from server ] [ client reads from server ]
C read 3 from B - 43 sec C read 3 from B - 12 sec (~35% net util)
C read 3 from A - 41 sec C read 3 from A - 12 sec (~35% net util)
C read 1 from A - 120 sec C read 1 from A - 28 sec (same %s)
C read 1 from B - 126 sec C read 1 from B - 28 sec
C read 2 from B - 60 sec C read 2 from B - 15 sec
C read 2 from A - 58 sec C read 2 from A - 15 sec
[ server writes to server ] [ server writes to server ]
A write 4 to B - 210 sec A write 4 to B - 36 sec (>55% net util)
[ server reads from server ] [ server reads from server ]
A reads 4 from B - 216 sec A reads 4 from B - 200 sec (delayed writes)
------------------- -------------------
Private 10MB shared ethernet subnet Private 100MB shared ethernet subnet
[ client writes to server ] [ client writes to server ]
D write 1 to A - 153 sec D write 1 to A - 78 sec (~5% net util)
D write 1 to B - 163 sec D write 1 to B - 405 sec (0% net util!)
D write 2 to B - 74 sec D write 2 to B - 193 sec (!)
D write 2 to A - 73 sec D write 2 to A - 36 sec
D write 3 to A - 48 sec D write 3 to A - 30 sec
D write 3 to B - 49 sec D write 3 to B - 132 sec (!)
[ client reads from server ] [ client reads from server ]
D read 3 from B - 49 sec D read 3 from B - 18 sec (~35% net util)
D read 3 from A - 47 sec D read 3 from A - 17 sec (~35% net util)
D read 1 from A - 142 sec D read 1 from A - 51 sec (same %s)
D read 1 from B - 148 sec D read 1 from B - 52 sec
D read 2 from B - 71 sec D read 2 from B - 26 sec
D read 2 from A - 68 sec D read 2 from A - 25 sec
-------------------
Observations:
01 - From an NT client, there is very little noticeable difference between
reading and writing from/to a NT native or SAMBA implementation of SMB/CIFS.
02 - SAMBA utilized bandwidth better than NT server when an NT client
writes to it on
a 100MB pipe.
03 - Raid 5 is the NT server's bottleneck when reading on a 100MB pipe.
04 - A windows 98 client acts brain dead when writing to a SAMBA server on
a 100MB
pipe (much worse than writing to a SAMBA server on a 10MB pipe)!
05 - Neither disk nor memory caching seemed to come into play in these tests.
06 - This test did not study multi-user read/writes, possible memory
problems with
SAMBA when it forks a smbd for each user?
07 - This test did not study network congestion, read/write retries, or
multiple
client versions connecting at once.
-------------------
Results:
Samba 2.0.3 is a pretty slick implementation of SMB/CIFS. The price can't
be beat
(free), but Samba will require more administration/setup since it's
interface is much
more difficult to use than the PnC (point and click) gui of NT. While this
may be
daunting to NT PnC admins, Samba also gives fine grain access to the
mechanisms of
SMB/CIFS for fine tuning. For the purposes of read only file services, MAC
OSX and
SAMBA seem to be a fine match against NT server native SMB/CIFS. The only
outlier is
the bizarre result with the 98 clients on the 100MB pipe. More extensive
testing
need to be done at the level of Apple Computer to reproduce business
standardized
results. Apple should really push the easy of use of MAC OSX and the lower
price
point when considering NT's proclivity to BSOD weekly, the requirement to
buy CALS,
and its constant security problems.
-------------------
- Marc DeBonis (Marc.DeBonis at vt.edu)
written 990525 v1.0
Virginia Tech / AIS-TS
--
Marc 'Doc' DeBonis [Email: Marc.DeBonis at vt.edu (PGP/SMIME on rqst)]
Programmer Analyst, Sr. [AIS-Technical Support Virginia Tech (VPI&SU)]
"Absit prudentia nil rei publicae profitur"
"Alterius non sit qui suus esse potest"
-\|/-
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list