Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance

[Damien Fleuriot]

On 6 Jul 2013, at 21:34, Martin Alejandro Paredes Sanchez <mapsware at prodigy.net.mx> wrote:

> On Saturday 06 July 2013 01:55:31 Andrea Venturoli wrote:
>> On 07/05/13 20:42, Terje Elde wrote:
>>> On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli <ml at netfence.it> wrote:
>>>> Is this normal in your experience?
>>> 
>>> Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first?
>>> 
>>> If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a
>>> major factor.
>> 
>> Yesterday I did four test:
>> _ SMB find resulting in over 10 minutes first time;
>> _ SMB find resulting in nearly 10 minutes second time;
>> _ NFS find resulting in a little over 1 minute first time;
>> _ NFS find resulting in a little less than 1 minute second time.
>> 
>> 
>> Today I tried again in reverse order:
>> _ NFS find took 3 minutes;
>> _ NFS find again took 21 seconds;
>> _ SMB find took over 9 minutes;
>> _ SMB find again took again over 9 minutes.
>> 
>> So, while caching plays a role, it just isn't it.
>> The server was possibly doing other things, so the above figures might
>> not be that correct; however a difference in the magnitude order is just
>> too big (and deterministic) to be considered random noise.
> 
> the problem may be high log level for Samba
> 
> You should read this
> 
> http://www.hob-techtalk.com/2009/03/09/nfs-vs-cifs-aka-smb
> 

Wow wow wow, their numbers with SMB seem super low.

They claim to get 80Mb/s NFS vs 7Mb SMB.

I'm getting 80-100Mbs with samba here with a core i3, 4gb of RAM and a 12tb raidz2 pool on GREEN drives, which are definitely not server grade (replacing them with WD reds, btw).