[REPORT] Performance Test Samba vs Windows

Garming Sam garming at catalyst.net.nz
Mon May 14 03:16:49 UTC 2018

There's some interesting observations that you can make about the
overall traffic, without looking at too much detail of the actual runs.

1) In terms of maximum traffic (which in our examples has been quite
LDAP based), Windows is at most 50% faster. This number likely shrinks
depending on whether or not the service levels (e.g. 99% success) at
such high load are acceptable or not.

2) Looking at median packet response times, we generally spend twice as
long on processing a packet. However, the difference between our 95
percentile values is often much smaller than this and some of the mean
values are actually at parity.

3) With small to moderate loads, Samba handles a similar amount of
operations per second to Windows. For the values shown, it actually
seems to get more throughput (although not incredibly so) for a good
chunk of the table shown.

It's actually kind of surprising that Samba doesn't perform all that
much worse than Windows does. It's certainly not off by an order of
magnitude (or two), although this testing has been run in the prefork
mode. Our previous analyses showed much smaller numbers and that's
likely due to the limitations of being stuck with a single-process.



On 14/05/18 14:45, joeg at catalyst.net.nz wrote:
> Hi Team,
> I've been trying to make the Samba performance test tool work against
> Windows.
> After a lot of effort, Garming and I fixed all the errors for
> different packets, and finally it's working(fixes are merged into master).
> Base on that, we can send traffic to Samba and Windows, get the
> maximum load, and compare the performance.
> An example of the command I was using:
> script/traffic_replay -U Administrator%PASSWORD  --realm
> krb.samba.site --workgroup KRB --fixed-password FIXED-PASSWORD -r 4 -S
> 4 traffic-sample-1-model.txt dc1.krb.samba.site 2>&1 >
> traffic_replay_stats/dc1_r4_S4.txt
> By changing the combination of different -r and -S, we can get test
> results and save to files, then parse files to get summary tables as
> below.
> The number displayed is "*Successful operations per s**econd*", the 0
> ones are combinations we think not important and skipped.
>       Test Result for Samba (master code on 2018.05.11):
>       Test Result for Windows Server 2012r2:
> I am running the test with 4 servers in Catalyst Cloud which is Openstack:
> All data are attached, hope this can help the team to understand how
> is Samba performing with compare to Windows.
> -- 
> Joe Guo
> joeg at catalyst.net.nz
> Catalyst IT

More information about the samba-technical mailing list