From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752288Ab1HRSSS (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:18:18 -0400 Received: from lucidpixels.com ([72.73.18.11]:44699 "EHLO lucidpixels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750750Ab1HRSSR (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:18:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:18:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Justin Piszcz To: Steve French cc: Jeff Layton , "J. R. Okajima" , Jesper Juhl , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Piszcz , Steve French , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Kernel 3.0: Instant kernel crash when mounting CIFS (also crashes with linux-3.1-rc2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20110815064734.403b630f@corrin.poochiereds.net> <3300.1313637592@jrobl> <20110818091140.385a9455@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com> <20110818130408.71c55b96@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Steve French wrote: > If reading files - smbclient (ftp like syntax) should be able to reach > wire speeds (assuming the server disk can keep up) and for > writing it should be similar (perhaps a little slower but it won't > use i/o sizes as large as cifs kernel client). I would expect > smbclient to/copy from Windows to be faster than Windows mount -> Samba. > > I reached near wirespeeds for GigE with cifs client (writing) to > Winodws 2003/2008/r2 > and Samba - but didn't have fast enough disks to test 10GigE although I expect > very good performance with that if you have fast enough server disks (and > am willing to put performance patches in, if you detect additional > changes that we should make for 10GigE - in particular allowing > more than 50 simultaneous requests). > > If the registry fix for Windows 7 is in place (or if you copy to > WIndows 2008, Windows 2003, WIndows 2008r2) - > cifs kernel client is probably slightly faster for writes than alternatives, > smbclient much faster for reads. > > If going the other direction (Windows client copying to/from Samba server) - > Samba 3.6 (server) with SMB2 support > turned on - is going to be faster than most alternatives. Hi, Downloading from an FTP Server on the windows machine: <--- 150 Connection accepted `file' at 418873344 (24%) 145.58M/s eta:9s [Receiving data] `file' at 735510528 (42%) 162.93M/s eta:6s [Receiving data] `file' at 1357185024 (78%) 172.89M/s eta:2s [Receiving data] <--- 226 Transfer OK ---- Got EOF on data connection ---- Closing data socket 1719784995 bytes transferred in 9 seconds (181.65M/s) Same file (via CIFS): 50MB/s Device eth6 [10.0.1.2] (1/1): ================================================================================ Incoming: Outgoing: Curr: 49.17 MByte/s Curr: 0.58 MByte/s Avg: 8.76 MByte/s Avg: 0.03 MByte/s Min: 0.00 MByte/s Min: 0.00 MByte/s Max: 197.68 MByte/s Max: 0.86 MByte/s Ttl: 585.87 GByte Ttl: 6.97 GByte 0.02user 4.09system 0:33.84elapsed 12%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 3632maxresident)k The RAID's on both systems can achieve > 750MiB/s sustained without any problems (benchmarked in the past) and the system has 56 PCI-e 2.0 lanes and a cable between two 10GbE nics. Not sure where to start, Win7/box tweaks or Linux/CIFS options? Again, Samba -> Linux = 500MiB/s, so FTP > 3x faster than CIFS. I know NFS gets a lot of testing (never had an issue with it/performance/etc) However, regarding CIFS-- is there a test suite/or benchmark pack the CIFS developers use to make sure everything is working in order? Justin.