Poor Samba throughput on 6.0 RC1

[Joao Barros]

On 10/26/05, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander at leidinger.net> wrote:
> I haven't read the entire thread, but by looking at this I assume there's
> another FS than NTFS involved. Benchmarking with NTFS (or MSDOSFS) as the
> underlying FS doesn't make sense (unless you want to measure the performance
> of NTFS or MSDOSFS), since it's slow (for NTFS you should be happy to at
> least be able to read something, there's no open documentation about it
> available).
>
> So I suggest you try with a good FS (ufs 1 or 2) only and don't bother about
> NTFS, to make sure the FS isn't the bottleneck.
>
> Bye,
> Alexander.

Your right, you didn't read the entire thread :D
My first test was with ufs. I just popped an IDE disk into the machine
to have means to compare.

/dev/da0s1a on / (ufs, local)
devfs on /dev (devfs, local)
/dev/da0s1e on /tmp (ufs, local, soft-updates)
/dev/da0s1f on /usr (ufs, local, soft-updates)
/dev/da0s1d on /var (ufs, local, soft-updates)
/dev/amrd0s1c on /storage (ufs, local, soft-updates)
/dev/ad0s1 on /mnt/temp (ntfs, local)

--
Joao Barros