Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
Martin Alejandro Paredes Sanchez
mapsware at prodigy.net.mx
Sat Jul 6 19:39:57 UTC 2013
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
More information about the freebsd-questions