[Samba] os x and samba performance vs netatalk

[Philip Edelbrock]

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.


Phil

Stewart Allen wrote:

> Client:
>
>  Dual 1GHz G4 OSX 10.2
>  Gig-Ethernet
>
> Server:
>
>  Dual 2GHz P4 Linux 2.4.18
>  Raid-5 1TB
>  Gig-Ethernet
>
> 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.
>
> thanks,
>
> stewart
>