[nas-2000] Re: Performance SMB vs FTP
- From: Julius Loman <lomo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nas-2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 08:43:19 +0200
On Thursday 17 May 2007 18:34, Tom Haukap wrote:
> Julius-
>
> thanks for the answer. So I see that 's not worth much to further dig into
> this problem. So I start to be lucky with these values :)
>
> Yes, while doing SMB operations the box is under heavy load. Reaction time
> in telnet are very very slow.
>
> Sorry to ask: What is the difference between SMB and CIFS? Or di you meant
> NFS?
have a look here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIFS
CIFS is basically an extension/new version of SMB protocol with support of
some features that SMB doesn't have.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom
>
> Am 17.05.2007 16:50 Uhr schrieb "Julius Loman" unter <lomo@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Thursday 17 May 2007 16:28, Tom Haukap wrote:
> >> Triggerd by the recent discussion about ftp performance I check by box
> >> and found out that the SMB transfer rate are only half of the once from
> >> ftp.
> >>
> >> I get nearly 7 MB/s from FTP but only around 3.5 MB/s using SMB.
> >
> > you are lucky having such values!!
> > i'm getting 1.4MB/s with SMB and 2.8 with CIFS
> >
> > i've also done some testing and compiled another smbd in gentoo chroot on
> > NAS with same performance results! so now I think the performance will
> > not be much better via smb/cifs protocol on this NAS hardware.
> >
> > at least this cpu has ~70 bogomips compared to ~4000 with my 2.0GHz
> > Pentium-M
> >
> > when downloading from NAS, arm cpu in NAS is very busy for smbd (95% or
> > more) and when downloading from my laptop to another computer it is
> > around 2% (at laptop).
> >
> > so now i guess the performance of SMB is limited with NAS hardware.
> > has anyone got better results than yours 3.5MB/s ?
--
[Julius Loman][lomo@xxxxxxxxxxx][http://lomo.kyberia.net][icq:35732873]
Other related posts:
