[Samba] Windows 2K outperform Linux/Samba very much?

[Mark Lidstone]

Here's a thought - If ACLs/journalling aren't needed, how well does
Samba work on FAT/VFAT partitions?  Could the sheer simplicity of the
filesystem help there?

Thanks,

Mark Lidstone
IT and Network Support Administrator

BMT SeaTech Ltd
Grove House, Meridians Cross, 7 Ocean Way
Ocean Village, Southampton.  SO14 3TJ. UK
Tel: +44 (0)23 8063 5122         
Fax: +44 (0)23 8063 5144

E-Mail:  mailto:mark.lidstone at bmtseatech.co.uk
Website: www.bmtseatech.co.uk
========================================================================
==
Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer: 
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are intended only for
the
use of the e-mail addressee(s) shown. If you are not that person, or one
of those persons, you are not allowed to take any action based upon it
or
to copy it, forward, distribute or disclose the contents of it and you
should please delete it from your system. BMT SeaTech Limited does not
accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this
e-mail
or its attachments which arise as a result of Internet transmission, nor
accept liability for statements which are those of the author and not
clearly made on behalf of BMT SeaTech Limited.
========================================================================
==
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Malcolm Baldridge [mailto:google at paypc.com] 
Sent: 08 July 2004 10:43
To: samba
Subject: Re: Re: [Samba] Windows 2K outperform Linux/Samba very much?


Jacky Kim <jcy_2008 at 163.com> wrote:

> I trid 20,000 files in a directory too, and found the same result: 
> Windows's share is about 10 times faster than Linux/samba's one when 
> get small file's property(NOT content).

Jacky,

Not all Linux filesystems are created equally, especially for this kind
of file access method.

Ext2/Ext3 is probably the slowest filesytem for this kind of thing.  I
have seen some glimpses of directory hashing being retrofitted into
ext2/ext3, but this requires a format-time option with very new tools,
with new mount/kernels, etc.

You'd be MUCH better off with reiserfs.  I've had 500,000 files in a
single directory without a significant decrease in performance.  I've
never managed to get Windows 2000 to manage this without really tanking
in performance [I've given up the test harness long before it got that
far].

I don't think you'll ever see samba outperforming Windows in this
though, because of the case-insensitivity issue, though it should at
least match the performance.

Reiserfs may provide other benefits (superior access locality) which
MIGHT boost performance a bit towards Linux/Samba, but I'd not hold my
breath.

=MB=
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba