I guess I'm sort of surprised and I expected better performance I have a new server set up with RAID 10 drives (6) Repeated a number of times and though I am clumsy with stop watch timing, these numbers appear to be close enough for government work... Server, CentOS 5.2 and updated earlier today, just installed a week ago. Client, Macintosh G4, OS X 10.4.11 NFS Mount is done with the following options... -P (privileged ports) intr -r=32768 -w=32768 I tried doubling the size of the read/write windows to 65536 but it seemed to make little difference. Task, Read / Write 648 Megabyte Photoshop file (PSD) Win2K = Win2K server (slow), RAID 5, Symantec EndPoint (ugh), retiring this server AFP = Netatalk from new CentOS Server SMB = Samba from new CentOS Server NFS = see above options, same CentOS Server Copy To Win2K AFP SMB NFS 1m40.053s 0m22.566s 0m23.817s 2m11.849s Copy From Win2K AFP SMB NFS 1m34.478s 0m20.709s 0m20.823s 0m23.487s NFS read performance was slightly slower than AFP/SMB but the write performance was poor. I suppose that the answer is not so important because if the performance was equal to AFP and/or SMB, they'd probably just use AFP anyway but I did want to register my shock (or my ignorance). Craig
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 at 11:21pm, Craig White wrote> Server, CentOS 5.2 and updated earlier today, just installed a week ago. > > Client, Macintosh G4, OS X 10.4.11*snip*> Copy To Win2K AFP SMB NFS > 1m40.053s 0m22.566s 0m23.817s 2m11.849s > > Copy From Win2K AFP SMB NFS > 1m34.478s 0m20.709s 0m20.823s 0m23.487s >Do you have any Linux clients to test with? That way you could determine whether the problem is on the server or the client side. ISTR hearing bad things about Apple's NFS implementation (shocking, I know). You also want to test with larger files (at least 2x RAM of the server or client, whichever is larger) to make sure you're not just seeing cache effects. -- Joshua Baker-LePain QB3 Shared Cluster Sysadmin UCSF
> Client, Macintosh G4, OS X 10.4.11 > > NFS Mount is done with the following options... > -P (privileged ports) > intr > -r=32768 > -w=32768 > I tried doubling the size of the read/write windows to 65536 but it > seemed to make little difference. > > Task, Read / Write 648 Megabyte Photoshop file (PSD) > Win2K = Win2K server (slow), RAID 5, Symantec EndPoint (ugh), retiring > this server > AFP = Netatalk from new CentOS Server > SMB = Samba from new CentOS Server > NFS = see above options, same CentOS Server > > Copy To Win2K AFP SMB NFS > 1m40.053s 0m22.566s 0m23.817s 2m11.849s > > Copy From Win2K AFP SMB NFS > 1m34.478s 0m20.709s 0m20.823s 0m23.487s > > NFS read performance was slightly slower than AFP/SMB but the write > performance was poor.I had a similar problem with a freebsd box awhile ago and the solution was to mount an nfs share with much lower r/w buffer size (2048?). There also was something in the logs related to nfs server timeouts or server not responding. HTH
Seemingly Similar Threads
- Using unicode symbol has unexpected results in levels of factor object
- Help With File transfer of files named "Apple*" + Lacie 5Big RAID
- ANNOUNCEMENT: New Project- Baltra (AFP/SMB services compatibility)
- Inconsistent behavior using 3.1.2 from macOS 10.12.2 to an AFP mount
- Dynamic Link Aggregation via Samba