samba performance difference between old and the latest ?

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 16:05 -0700, Jeremy Allison via samba-technical
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 07:57:24AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > 2019-09-07 1:18 GMT+09:00, Jeremy Allison via samba-technical
> > <samba-technical at lists.samba.org>:
> > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 11:01:51AM +0900, Namjae Jeon via samba-
> > > technical
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > I found something strange during measuring performance with
> > > > samba these
> > > > days.

> > > > dd test result is same with iozone result.
> > > > 
> > > > samba 4.7.6 : 11.6MB/s
> > > > samba 4.10.6 : 9.5MB/s
> > > > 
> > > > with samba 4.7.6 :
> > > > root at test1234-Samsung-DeskTop-System:/mnt/read# dd if=/dev/zero
> > > > of=1.txt
> > > > bs=4096
> > > > count=1024
> > > > 1024+0 records in
> > > > 1024+0 records out
> > > > 4194304 bytes (4.2 MB, 4.0 MiB) copied, 0.360991 s, 11.6 MB/s
> > > > 
> > > > with samba 4.10.6 :
> > > > root at test1234-Samsung-DeskTop-System:/mnt/read# dd if=/dev/zero
> > > > of=1.txt
> > > > bs=4096
> > > > count=1024
> > > > 1024+0 records in
> > > > 1024+0 records out
> > > > 4194304 bytes (4.2 MB, 4.0 MiB) copied, 0.442567 s, 9.5 MB/s
> > > > 
> > > > Am I missing something? or real issue ?
> > > 
> > > Is this on identical kernel versions ?
> > 
> > Yes, I compared two versions in the same test environment.
> 
> Just checking :-). In that case doing a cachegrind run
> on each of the two different versions might show where
> the issue is. 

Perhaps it negotiated different protocol versions or encryption
settings?

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                       https://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team  https://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT          
https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba