Curious. My tests had Samba winning, hands-down (although not as dramaticly as your test shows). I don't have giga-bit ethernet though... I wonder if that matters? (I'm on switched 100Mb) I also wasn't using an alpha release of samba. Do you have any logging or debugging turned on on Samba which might be bogging it down? You show you are 10.2... is that 10.2.0 or 10.2.3? The OS-X patches seem to be changing a lot right now, even the minor numbered ones.
BTW- I'm currently working on rewriting parts of the netatalk source to make it store files on the server in a way which is compatible with OS-X. I'm hoping this will allow more flexibility. (I.e., if you share the same files to OS-X Macs connecting via SMB and AFP, you'll see the resource forks disappear as well as a number of side problems like difficulty is deleting folders from AFP).
Be wary of files not copying/duplicating with OS-X not warning you about it. For example, if you select 100 files and hit command-D (duplicate), it often only duplicates /most/ and not all of them. I.e. double check to make sure that the data is actually making it there.
Phil
Stewart Allen wrote:
Client:
Dual 1GHz G4 OSX 10.2
Gig-Ethernet
Server:
Dual 2GHz P4 Linux 2.4.18
Raid-5 1TB
Gig-Ethernet
With netatalk 1.5.5 I get sustained writes of 66MB/s (yes, megabytes)
With samba 2.2.7a I get sustained writes of 15MB/s
I've tweaked the settings and ended up with these:
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192 IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_KEEPALIVE
read raw = true
write raw = true
read size = 65535
write size = 65535
write cache size = 262144
But no changes led to any noticeable positive improvements.
So my questions is this: is OS X just a sucky SMB client or is Samba misconfigured? I would stick with netatalk for performance, but it has a 2GB file limit which is a deal-breaker for large media files.
thanks,
stewart
-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
