Samba does have some overhead above and beyond FTP. This is
something that I believe I read is being worked on for the next major
release of Samba. Of course, the transfer rate isn't incredibly bad,
comparison to running a Windows fileserver. On the exact same hardware,
Samba actually reads and writes files faster then our old Windows NT 4.0
Install did.
I would HIGHLY recommend staying away from ext2fs, unless you
are running a very good/long lasting UPS and also have redundant power
supplies. Otherwise all you would need is one crash and then bang, you
will either be stuck with a looooong fsck that may require you to
manually rebuild inodes. Sure performance could be better without
journaling, but I would sacrifice performance EVERYTIME if I got better
reliability, quicker recoveries and fewer potential data loss events.
Regards,
Robert Adkins II
IT Manager/Buyer
Impel Industries, Inc.
586-254-5800
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Me
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 8:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ext3fs/ReiserFS Performance Enhancing
Have you posted this information on the Samba list?
I've currently got a thread going where I have posted benchmark results
after making various changes.
So far I have been concentrating on read performance but I'll start
getting some write benchmarks today.
I'm currently using ext3. I got a test hard drive that I'll be trying
XFS
and riserfs on. I really have no idea why I can't get better read
performance. I'm stuck at 7-7.5MB/sec. I find it really hard to
believe
that the protocal has that kind of overhead. I can currently get
10.5MB/sec when transfering the same info using FTP...
Do you have any results to share?
> Hello All,
>
> I have been doing some research to find a method to increase the
> performance of writes to the hard drives in my servers. I am running
> Samba and all writes to the server hard drives are taking at least 3
to
> 10 times (It varies) the amount of time it took to write such files on
> our older Windows NT 4.0 File Server.
>
> The following information is provided to keep this issue on
> track...
>
> It is not a NIC or network issue. Reads of files from those
> drives take place almost instantly. I have been able to copy an entire
> 700MB CD-ROM ISO image off of the server in less then 3 minutes, yet
> writing a 5 MB file to the server will take approximately the 3
minutes,
> or more. I have also optimized the smb.conf file as best as it can be.
> This resulted in a gain of approximately 15 seconds.
>
> This happens regardless of how busy the server is in serving
> files to other users as I have tested this while all PCs were in use
on
> the network and also when none were in use.
>
> In some of my searching, I have read that ReiserFS has faster
> write performance then Ext3FS. So, I blew away the "share" partition
on
> our test server, recreated that with ReiserFS and rebuilt the share.
So
> far, I have only seen a few seconds of speed increase. (The other odd
> thing is that the Windows Explorer file copy progress bar is much more
> consistent to the ReiserFS share then the ext3fs share.)
>
> I have a few ideas about why there is a slowdown and a few ideas
> of what could possibly increase performance. However, I am at a loss
as
> to how to implement those changes or how to verify that they are even
> possible. (Except by asking this list.)
>
> My Google searches have come up dry with actual methods (ie.
> Commands to look at or actually use.) to implement some performance
> enhancements. All they say are things like, change ext3fs's method of
> writing the journal from the stock "conservative" method to the much
> faster, yet slightly dangerous, method. There is just no mention of
how
> that is done. I have read through the man pages and there is nothing
> that leaps out and says, "This is the command that alters the ext3fs
> journal method."
>
> From what I read, so far, about the two journaling methods it is
> a VERY acceptable risk for the potential performance increase. (It is
> even more acceptable if it can be setup only to affect the share
> partition, which is also its own separate drive.)
>
> There are a few other ideas that I have, but after thinking
> those over, they would likely be far more of a hassle then they would
be
> worth.
>
> Are there any suggestions for increasing HD Write performance,
> while still using a journaling FS? At this time, I do not have the
> resources and additional funds to rebuild the hard drives using XFS or
> JFS. So, it has to be ReiserFS or ext3fs.
>
> Thanks for any assistance!
>
> Regards,
> Robert Adkins II
> IT Manager/Buyer
> Impel Industries, Inc.
> 586-254-5800
>
>
>
>
> --
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
