Thank Mark.
I have tried another test program in Linux, it call 2 C lib functions
(open & fstat) to small files, and I compute the time they take via
gettimeofday system call.
// C code ...
ret = gettimeofday(&before, &zone);
fd = open(argv[1], O_RDONLY);
ret = gettimeofday(&after, &zone);
interval1 = (after.tv_usec - before.tv_usec);
ret = fstat(fd, &buf);
ret = gettimeofday(&before, &zone);
interval2 = (before.tv_usec - after.tv_usec);
// C code ...
Linux Test results(time unit is usec):
case open fstat
---- ---- -----
1 800 240
1 757 239
2 18175 245
2 17240 246
Case 1: smbmount Linux/samba's share that contains 20,000 small files
set 'case sensitive = Yes' in smb.conf
Case 2: smbmount Windows's share that contains 20,000 small file
Test analysis:
1. Linux/samba performs much better than Windows as for open system call.
2. The 2 Operation systems have same performance with fstat system call.
But when VB test program in Windows is used, Windows has much better
perpormance then linux/samba
// VB code ...
Set objFSO = CreateObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
thistime = thisnow
If objFSO.FileExists(fn) Then
totle = totle & "Check file time " & CStr(thisnow - thistime) + " ms"
+ vbCrLf
thistime = thisnow
Set objFile = objFSO.GetFile(fn)
totle = totle & "Get object time " & CStr(thisnow - thistime) + " ms"
+ vbCrLf
thistime = thisnow
temp = DateValue(CStr(objFile.DateLastModified))
totle = totle & "Get date time " & CStr(thisnow - thistime) + " ms" +
vbCrLf
End If
// VB code ...
Windows Test results(time unit is msec):
case FileExists GetFile DateLastModified
---- ---------- ------- ----------------
1 20 0 100
1 0 0 120
1 0 0 61
2 30 10 0
2 30 0 0
2 10 0 0
Case 1: map Linux/samba's share that contains 20,000 small files
set 'case sensitive = Yes' in smb.conf
Case 2: map Windows's share that contains 20,000 small file
Can we get the follow conclusions as for check small file's property:
1. Windows client can get much better performance from Windows's share than others'
2. Linux client can get much better performance from Linux/Samba's share than others'
Best Regards!
Jacky Kim
.
>Hi,
>
>The next step is probably to capture some network traces of your
>benchmarking test and compare and contrast the NT and Samba backends.
>
>Playing with the negotiated protocol level might win you some more
>performance by simplifying the transactions. It may lose you a lot too
>though. (See max protocol option)
>
>There are the max xmit/socket options/stat cache tweakables. If you
>have logging wound up on the linux box, that can affect performance
>greatly too.
>
>How does performance of the filesystem on the linux machine vary with
>number of files in the directory ? Ie, take samba out of the equation
>and see if you're running into underlying issues with your file layout.
>
>Splitting your directory into a hierarchical structure is certainly more
>scalable than a flat directory.
>
>Mark
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
