Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:55:31 +0200 From: Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance Message-ID: <51D7DB83.4060809@netfence.it> In-Reply-To: <669058E9-E663-424E-94A6-29D81757C580@elde.net> References: <51D6F1E4.4090001@netfence.it> <669058E9-E663-424E-94A6-29D81757C580@elde.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/05/13 20:42, Terje Elde wrote: > On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it> wrote: > >> Is this normal in your experience? > > Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first? > > If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a major factor. Yesterday I did four test: _ SMB find resulting in over 10 minutes first time; _ SMB find resulting in nearly 10 minutes second time; _ NFS find resulting in a little over 1 minute first time; _ NFS find resulting in a little less than 1 minute second time. Today I tried again in reverse order: _ NFS find took 3 minutes; _ NFS find again took 21 seconds; _ SMB find took over 9 minutes; _ SMB find again took again over 9 minutes. So, while caching plays a role, it just isn't it. The server was possibly doing other things, so the above figures might not be that correct; however a difference in the magnitude order is just too big (and deterministic) to be considered random noise. bye & Thanks av.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51D7DB83.4060809>