[nas-2000] Re: Performance SMB vs FTP

  • From: philipp Wehrheim <flipstar@xxxxxxx>
  • To: nas-2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:42:31 +0200

Thats strange specialy because you have the NAS1000 right?

and so you don't a fan on the NAS ...

Aurelien schrieb:
> I've tried to see if there were any difference between hardware of my
> NAS and the Flip's one.
> I've seen that Flip got a thermal cooler on his NAS CPU. There is
> nothing on mine (see attached pictures).
> I will try to see if the unit CPU is really hot during transfer. That
> could explain, for a same firmware, the hugh performance
> difference that we've got.
> philipp Wehrheim a écrit :
>> Hi,
>> not really guess it would be really usefull
>> to start all daemons that support it by the inetd
>> Julius Loman schrieb:
>>> 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 ?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other related posts: