Apologies, launchpad didn't keep the neatly tab separated column format, but hopefully the script can help others to test.
Attached png of side-by-side comparison of script output. Only the latency for accessing a single 4K block doesn't seem to differ too much, but for every other mult-block sequential IO read, in terms of latency, bandwidth and IOPS, GVFS is over 10 times slower than CIFS. While I know fuse mounts (userspace filesystems) will be understandably slower than kernel space mounts, more than 10 times slower is significant and indicates there's inefficiencies / room for improvement. ** Attachment added: "GVFS-SMB vs CIFS" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gvfs/+bug/1236619/+attachment/5379760/+files/gvfs-smb_vs_cifs_seq_read_benchmark_ubuntu_18.04.4.png -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to gvfs in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1236619 Title: gvfs smb / cifs file copy performance is terribly slow To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gvfs/+bug/1236619/+subscriptions -- desktop-bugs mailing list desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
