[Samba] os x and samba performance vs netatalk

[John H Terpstra]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Stewart Allen wrote:

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

What is your RAID device? What controller? What drives?

Using a 3Ware 7500-4 IDE RAID Controller with 3 Western Digital 60GB
7200rpm drives, in a Tyan S2462 Thunder K7 motherboard with dual AMD
MP1600+ CPUs and 1GB DDR 2100 RAM, running the linux-2.4.18 kernel over
1GBe I was able to get sustained read rates of approx. 90MB/sec and
sustained write rates of 70MB/s using samba.

My client was a Tyan S2640 512MB RAM, 1 Gbe, dual MP1600+ CPUs.

Your numbers are way off mine. Suggest we compare notes on what hardware
you are using, what kernel options are enabled. How many CPU's etc.

- John T.

>   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
>
>

-- 
John H Terpstra
Email: jht at samba.org