[Samba] os x and samba performance vs netatalk
phil at netroedge.com
Fri Jan 3 22:25:01 GMT 2003
Curious. My tests had Samba winning, hands-down (although not as
dramaticly as your test shows). I don't have giga-bit ethernet
though... I wonder if that matters? (I'm on switched 100Mb) I also
wasn't using an alpha release of samba. Do you have any logging or
debugging turned on on Samba which might be bogging it down? You show
you are 10.2... is that 10.2.0 or 10.2.3? The OS-X patches seem to be
changing a lot right now, even the minor numbered ones.
BTW- I'm currently working on rewriting parts of the netatalk source to
make it store files on the server in a way which is compatible with
OS-X. I'm hoping this will allow more flexibility. (I.e., if you share
the same files to OS-X Macs connecting via SMB and AFP, you'll see the
resource forks disappear as well as a number of side problems like
difficulty is deleting folders from AFP).
Be wary of files not copying/duplicating with OS-X not warning you about
it. For example, if you select 100 files and hit command-D (duplicate),
it often only duplicates /most/ and not all of them. I.e. double check
to make sure that the data is actually making it there.
Stewart Allen wrote:
> Dual 1GHz G4 OSX 10.2
> Dual 2GHz P4 Linux 2.4.18
> Raid-5 1TB
> With netatalk 1.5.5 I get sustained writes of 66MB/s (yes, megabytes)
> With samba 2.2.7a I get sustained writes of 15MB/s
> I've tweaked the settings and ended up with these:
> socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
> IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_KEEPALIVE
> read raw = true
> write raw = true
> read size = 65535
> write size = 65535
> write cache size = 262144
> But no changes led to any noticeable positive improvements.
> So my questions is this: is OS X just a sucky SMB client or is Samba
> misconfigured? I would stick with netatalk for performance, but it has
> a 2GB file limit which is a deal-breaker for large media files.
More information about the samba