[TriLUG] Samba vs NFS -- Speed difference, why?
Jason Tower
jason at cerient.net
Mon Jun 20 11:28:20 EDT 2005
just to clarify this point, i was testing transfer speed using my t42
with ubuntu. file transfers using nfs would occur at wire speed (12.5
MB/s) while the exact same file transferred using smb (mounted with
smbmount) would only be about 5.5 MB/s.
however, when i booted into windows on the t42 i could copy the file
(with smb of course) at nearly wire speed. so it seems that at least
part of the perceived problem has something to do with the smb *client*,
not the server. cpu utilization and iowait was not even close to being
a bottleneck so i'm not sure where the slowdown is occuring or why.
jason
John Broome wrote:
> I have a RH 9 machine that is acting as a fileserver for a completly
> windows network (98 & 2000), the users mentioned that the file
> transfers seemed slow.
>
> Some testing showed that samba was moving data much slower than NFS.
> Nfs was using pretty much the entire speed potential of the network,
> where SMB was about half that, or less.
>
> No indication on the server that CPU, HDD, or memory is the problem.
>
> When tested off site with different hardware and a different OS
> (Ubuntu 5.04), the same problem popped up.
>
> SMB dragging along, NFS cranking.
>
> Since this is a mostly windows network we can't really use NFS instead
> of the samba.
>
> Has anyone else run into this? Some googling doesn't really turn up much.
More information about the TriLUG
mailing list