On 11/9/05, Jeremie Le Hen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, Joao, > > > Last month I started a thread[1] on current@ about this, but I guess I > > should have done it here, my apologies for that. > > > > After my initial post I did some more testing and I'm going to start > > clean here with all my findings :) > > > > I started with Samba 3 installed on a PIII 733MHz with fxp (82559) and > > a RAID5 consisting of 4 drives connected to an amr. > > Performance reading or writing was poor, around 5.5MB/s measured on > > two Windows clients and iostat never topped that by much. > > cpu was mbufs were available and there were no IRQs shared. > > To dismiss the amr out of the question I tried with a local IDE > > attached yielding the same results. > > I then tested the same on a machine I have at work, an HP Proliant > > server, Pentium 4 3.06GHz, used SMP instead of GENERIC to use HTT. > > I could get 8MB/s with 2 read or write simultaneous operations. With 1 > > operation I still can only get 6MB/s > > This machine has 1GB ram and after copying a 700MB file to it it was > > all cached. > > A copy to dev/null took 1 second. > > A copy via samba took the same time as if there was no cache for it. > > iostat always showed 0.0 during the operation so that pretty much > > takes disks, controllers, IO out of the picture. > > > > Both machines have cpu, IO and mbufs to spare and they still can't use > > them. Why? > > I won't be able to help you much, but as almost nobody answered you, > I take it for the moment in order to ask you some more informations. > > Which scheduler are you using, 4BSD or ULE ? It might be worth testing > the other one and sending us the new benchmark results.
The testings were all with either GENERIC or SMP thus using 4BSD, I can try ULE and see if I get any different results. > > Also, if you are able to remove a drive from your RAID5, you can try > R/W performances from/to it, without using amr(4), both with 4BSD and > ULE. I tried using a single drive, an IDE and a SCSI-2 and on 2 machines at work both with a RAID1. Even better, there is a part in my initial email where I mention that having a 700MB file cached (iostat reported no reads) the results were the same. With this in mind I don't think the problem is at the storage level. -- Joao Barros _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
