atom feed19 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-questionsFreeBSD SAMBA file server performance...
FromSent OnAttachments
Nenad MihajlovicFeb 25, 2008 4:07 pm 
Derek RagonaFeb 25, 2008 4:18 pm 
Nenad MihajlovicFeb 25, 2008 4:24 pm 
Nenad MihajlovicFeb 25, 2008 4:24 pm 
Bill MoranFeb 25, 2008 4:29 pm 
Wojciech PucharFeb 25, 2008 5:26 pm 
Nenad MihajlovicFeb 26, 2008 11:59 am 
GhiraiFeb 27, 2008 5:18 pm 
GhiraiFeb 27, 2008 8:18 pm 
GhiraiFeb 27, 2008 8:28 pm 
Doug PolandFeb 27, 2008 8:30 pm 
GhiraiFeb 27, 2008 8:33 pm 
GhiraiFeb 27, 2008 8:33 pm 
Rick NekusFeb 27, 2008 8:53 pm 
Rick NekusFeb 27, 2008 9:05 pm 
GhiraiFeb 27, 2008 9:09 pm 
Rick NekusFeb 27, 2008 9:11 pm 
GhiraiFeb 27, 2008 9:17 pm 
Chuck RobeyFeb 29, 2008 1:28 am 
Subject:FreeBSD SAMBA file server performance - strange behaviour
From:Nenad Mihajlovic (nen@venturis.hu)
Date:Feb 26, 2008 11:59:50 am
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-questions

I found it.

I'll try it out, and see what we get. Interesting thing is, that i went again to verify the finds that i wrote in my letter, and it is not the ping itself that increases performance, but the fact of multiple connections - while pinging from console (ping -f), the behaviour stays the same, 5-13 Mb/sec varying, when i log in through ssh and do the ping -f , it seems to me that the fact of the second _active_ connection actually improves the things.

Nenad

<SNIP> ...

On the other hand, i experienced that when i try PING on the File server's IP address from the fileserver, i get performance increase in the transfer speed - the bigger the traffic i generate, the better the results, which max out at 25-27 MB/sec with flood ping.

Has anyone else experienced any similar behaviour?

Regards,

Nenad

Just as an FYI, you may find it better to use FreeNAS, which is based on FreeBSD.

http://www.freenas.org/

-Derek

_______________________________________________ free@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "free@freebsd.org"

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 2900 (20080225) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

----- End message from der@computinginnovations.com -----