Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 16:25:07 +0200 From: Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it> To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance Message-ID: <51DACBC3.6090403@netfence.it> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BtpaK3O-P3g8%2BQ-KMaB9FdR0w1eO8Vdar4Pm-2uA4H0qBZRYA@mail.gmail.com> References: <51D6F1E4.4090001@netfence.it> <CA%2BtpaK3O-P3g8%2BQ-KMaB9FdR0w1eO8Vdar4Pm-2uA4H0qBZRYA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/07/13 00:52, Adam Vande More wrote: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2013-January/038903.html Thanks Adam. However: I'm using UFS, not ZFS, so the first part is not applicable. I have an nfe card, not an em; so again, the second part does not apply. The only tunable in that driver is hw.nfe.msi_disable and hw.nfe.msix_disable, which I never tried; I guess I could when I have physical access to the box, but again, they are enabled by default and I doubt I would get better performance by disabling MSI[-X]. In addition, I don't think I suffer from a NIC bottleneck, given the speed of NFS and a "find" shouldn't read the whole files, so shouldn't require a lot of bandwidth. The third section is interesting: still no change, however. This does not suprise me, since I had extensively tried these (and other settings from several Samba howtos) with different values in the past, the difference being always quite negligible. The last thing I'm considering is slowness due to the LDAP backend. This is what I'm currently investigating. All the literature on Samba seems to be quite Linux-centric; that's why I asked on the FreeBSD mailing list whether this could be normal. bye & Thanks av.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51DACBC3.6090403>