Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance

[Andrea Venturoli]

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.

  bye & Thanks
	av.