Samba vs NFS performance - Solaris

This is a discussion on Samba vs NFS performance - Solaris ; Hi, I have a 3-machine setup, centred around a Solaris 10 box. Among other things, the Solaris machine acts as a file server, using NFS to a Linux machine and Samba to a Windoze machine. This all works fine, with ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Samba vs NFS performance

  1. Samba vs NFS performance

    Hi,

    I have a 3-machine setup, centred around a Solaris 10 box. Among other
    things, the Solaris machine acts as a file server, using NFS to a Linux
    machine and Samba to a Windoze machine. This all works fine, with one
    major exception: NFS (and local) accesses always seem to get priority
    over Samba access, so Samba performance is sometimes more or less
    unusable -- it slows down from 15-35 MB/s to 1 MB/s. Unfortunately one
    of the main use cases is that the Linux box writes a bunch of big files
    to the Solaris box over NFS, and the files are then accessed from the
    Windows box over SMB. Changing the operating systems is not an option
    here. In principle I could perhaps use Samba from the Linux side too,
    but there's still the problem of local accesses on the Solaris machine.

    Any ideas? Are there any parameters I can tune to speed up Samba
    transfers at the cost of NFS/local access?

    --
    Per Espen Hagen
    To reply by mail, replace the obvious with cc

  2. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    Per Espen Hagen wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I have a 3-machine setup, centred around a Solaris 10 box. Among other
    > things, the Solaris machine acts as a file server, using NFS to a Linux
    > machine and Samba to a Windoze machine. This all works fine, with one
    > major exception: NFS (and local) accesses always seem to get priority
    > over Samba access, so Samba performance is sometimes more or less
    > unusable -- it slows down from 15-35 MB/s to 1 MB/s. Unfortunately one
    > of the main use cases is that the Linux box writes a bunch of big files
    > to the Solaris box over NFS, and the files are then accessed from the
    > Windows box over SMB. Changing the operating systems is not an option
    > here. In principle I could perhaps use Samba from the Linux side too,
    > but there's still the problem of local accesses on the Solaris machine.
    >
    > Any ideas? Are there any parameters I can tune to speed up Samba
    > transfers at the cost of NFS/local access?


    I'd ditch the samba crap and buy the Reflection NFS client for windows.

  3. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    Per Espen Hagen wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I have a 3-machine setup, centred around a Solaris 10 box. Among other
    > things, the Solaris machine acts as a file server, using NFS to a Linux
    > machine and Samba to a Windoze machine. This all works fine, with one
    > major exception: NFS (and local) accesses always seem to get priority
    > over Samba access, so Samba performance is sometimes more or less
    > unusable -- it slows down from 15-35 MB/s to 1 MB/s. Unfortunately one
    > of the main use cases is that the Linux box writes a bunch of big files
    > to the Solaris box over NFS, and the files are then accessed from the
    > Windows box over SMB. Changing the operating systems is not an option
    > here. In principle I could perhaps use Samba from the Linux side too,
    > but there's still the problem of local accesses on the Solaris machine.
    >
    > Any ideas? Are there any parameters I can tune to speed up Samba
    > transfers at the cost of NFS/local access?
    >

    Two.

    Try OpenSolaris CIFS.
    Fit two NICS.

    --
    Ian Collins.

  4. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    Ian Collins wrote:
    > Per Espen Hagen wrote:


    >> I have a 3-machine setup, centred around a Solaris 10 box. Among other
    >> things, the Solaris machine acts as a file server, using NFS to a Linux
    >> machine and Samba to a Windoze machine. This all works fine, with one
    >> major exception: NFS (and local) accesses always seem to get priority
    >> over Samba access, so Samba performance is sometimes more or less
    >> unusable -- it slows down from 15-35 MB/s to 1 MB/s. Unfortunately one
    >> of the main use cases is that the Linux box writes a bunch of big files
    >> to the Solaris box over NFS, and the files are then accessed from the
    >> Windows box over SMB. Changing the operating systems is not an option
    >> here. In principle I could perhaps use Samba from the Linux side too,
    >> but there's still the problem of local accesses on the Solaris machine.
    >>
    >> Any ideas? Are there any parameters I can tune to speed up Samba
    >> transfers at the cost of NFS/local access?
    >>

    > Two.
    >
    > Try OpenSolaris CIFS.
    > Fit two NICS.


    Hmm ok I can try to use two NICs... but I'm pretty sure that the
    bottleneck is disk access and not network access. I'll try anyway,
    thanks for the tip.

    I don't really want to ditch Solaris 10 -- and I'm guessing OpenSolaris
    CIFS won't run under Sol10...

    It seems like a serious design flaw if NFS always gets priority over
    Samba? I would have thought there would be a way to change this...

    --
    Per Espen Hagen
    To reply by mail, replace the obvious with cc

  5. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    On 2008-08-19 06:36:45 +0100, Per Espen Hagen said:

    > Hmm ok I can try to use two NICs... but I'm pretty sure that the
    > bottleneck is disk access and not network access. I'll try anyway,
    > thanks for the tip.
    >
    > I don't really want to ditch Solaris 10 -- and I'm guessing OpenSolaris
    > CIFS won't run under Sol10...


    The CIFS support I'm aware of is part of ZFS in OpenSolaris. Check the
    ZFS docs on your box?

    > It seems like a serious design flaw if NFS always gets priority over
    > Samba? I would have thought there would be a way to change this...


    It might be worth doing some analysis of the Samba daemons, to see
    exactly why they are serving slowly.

    Cheers,

    Chris


  6. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    Per Espen Hagen wrote:

    > The beauty of Samba is that Windows clients can connect seamlessly and
    > transparently without any additional installs and setup. This cannot be
    > said for any NFS solution. And Samba works great when nobody is
    > accessing the machine through NFS -- so I would have thought there must
    > be a way to fix this.
    >


    Well, FWIW, I access my ZFS disk pool using both, and haven't noticed
    the issue. But I don't hammer it very hard -- typically just a few
    machines are connected.

    Again FWIW, I'm using Solaris 10 X86 on a Gigabyte motherboard with a
    Quad Core Intel and 8 GB of RAM. I suspect having plenty of RAM is
    significant.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

  7. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    Cydrome Leader wrote:
    [SNIP]
    >
    > the MS NFS client doesn't work correctly.

    In what ways? (Not being snarky, I'd like to know, as it is in my
    "required interoperability"set ATM, and I've not noticed anything -
    which means I may not be looking at the right places.)

    Cheers,
    Gary B-)

  8. Re: Samba vs NFS performance


    "Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
    news:g8d79e$rdg$3@reader1.panix.com...
    > Per Espen Hagen wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I have a 3-machine setup, centred around a Solaris 10 box. Among other
    >> things, the Solaris machine acts as a file server, using NFS to a Linux
    >> machine and Samba to a Windoze machine. This all works fine, with one
    >> major exception: NFS (and local) accesses always seem to get priority
    >> over Samba access, so Samba performance is sometimes more or less
    >> unusable -- it slows down from 15-35 MB/s to 1 MB/s. Unfortunately one
    >> of the main use cases is that the Linux box writes a bunch of big files
    >> to the Solaris box over NFS, and the files are then accessed from the
    >> Windows box over SMB. Changing the operating systems is not an option
    >> here. In principle I could perhaps use Samba from the Linux side too,
    >> but there's still the problem of local accesses on the Solaris machine.
    >>
    >> Any ideas? Are there any parameters I can tune to speed up Samba
    >> transfers at the cost of NFS/local access?

    >
    > I'd ditch the samba crap and buy the Reflection NFS client for windows.


    Reflections is stupid priced and I have never seen NFS to MS-Windoze
    workstations done in a secure manor. Cost, maintenance and security suffer
    big time with the Reflections solution.

    NFS should only be used where the security systems of the client and host
    are matched, look at it like NFS + NIS == SMB (Samba). The reflections is a
    PITA to setup correctly, thus open insecure NFS mounts end up being added.

    If the Linux box is doing all the big updates, maybe add disk to the Linux
    box and reverse the mounts. Samba runs pretty nicely on Linux.

    Too bad he couldn't ditch MS-Windoze, he wouldn't have this problem.

    ---
    MS-Windows for boys
    X-Windows for men



  9. Re: Samba vs NFS performance


    "Gary R. Schmidt" wrote in message
    news:6h1bpvFhvo6jU1@mid.individual.net...
    > Cydrome Leader wrote:
    > [SNIP]
    >>
    >> the MS NFS client doesn't work correctly.

    > In what ways? (Not being snarky, I'd like to know, as it is in my
    > "required interoperability"set ATM, and I've not noticed anything -
    > which means I may not be looking at the right places.)
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Gary B-)


    It is probably like reflections. NFS is half baked with Windoze because the
    security layers. So when using NFS with Windoze, you basically have to
    configure the xNIX machine to be trivially hackable via NFS. And that is if
    it works, often you get a load of other issues to boot.

    Stick with Samba. Many setup larger parameters using ndd and tinker with
    it, I have setup not very large systems having literally 100 active Samba
    mounts and it works and scales well.



  10. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    On 2008-08-21 13:40:00 +0100, "Canuck57" said:

    > Stick with Samba. Many setup larger parameters using ndd and tinker with
    > it, I have setup not very large systems having literally 100 active Samba
    > mounts and it works and scales well.


    How does the native CIFS support in OpenSolaris (and Solaris?) compare
    with Samba?

    Cheers,

    Chris


  11. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    Canuck57 wrote:
    > "Cydrome Leader" wrote in message


    > The reflections is a
    > PITA to setup correctly, thus open insecure NFS mounts end up being added.


    Sounds exactly like my experience with Reflection NFS.

    > If the Linux box is doing all the big updates, maybe add disk to the Linux
    > box and reverse the mounts. Samba runs pretty nicely on Linux.


    Yeah, that could be a solution. But, being a Solaris type person I
    guess, I was hoping to keep Solaris as the file server.

    > Too bad he couldn't ditch MS-Windoze, he wouldn't have this problem.


    Sometimes one has to deal with commercial software that's only available
    for certain platforms. The reason we have the Linux box is to run Matlab
    (in a 64-bit environment). At the other end we have some front end
    software that's only available for Windows. (The Solaris machine might
    seem the redundant one, but it's actually doing a lot of other things
    and really is the hub of the whole system.)

    --
    Per Espen Hagen
    To reply by mail, replace the obvious with cc

  12. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    Chris Ridd wrote:
    > On 2008-08-21 13:40:00 +0100, "Canuck57" said:
    >
    >> Stick with Samba. Many setup larger parameters using ndd and tinker with
    >> it, I have setup not very large systems having literally 100 active Samba
    >> mounts and it works and scales well.

    >
    > How does the native CIFS support in OpenSolaris (and Solaris?) compare
    > with Samba?
    >

    I haven't really hammered it yet, but my limited testing shows it to be
    no worse and much easier to configure.

    There's also the added benefit of the CIFS client, something that's
    never been any good with Samba on Solaris.

    --
    Ian Collins.

  13. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
    > Cydrome Leader wrote:
    > [SNIP]
    >>
    >> the MS NFS client doesn't work correctly.

    > In what ways? (Not being snarky, I'd like to know, as it is in my
    > "required interoperability"set ATM, and I've not noticed anything -
    > which means I may not be looking at the right places.)
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Gary B-)


    anytime I've used it, on XP or 2000 it hangs and disconnects. The server
    can be solaris, or FreeBSD, and the network between the machines seems
    irrelevant to it failing.

    The same machines with reflection work fine.



  14. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    Canuck57 wrote:
    >
    > "Gary R. Schmidt" wrote in message
    > news:6h1bpvFhvo6jU1@mid.individual.net...
    >> Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >> [SNIP]
    >>>
    >>> the MS NFS client doesn't work correctly.

    >> In what ways? (Not being snarky, I'd like to know, as it is in my
    >> "required interoperability"set ATM, and I've not noticed anything -
    >> which means I may not be looking at the right places.)
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> Gary B-)

    >
    > It is probably like reflections. NFS is half baked with Windoze because the
    > security layers. So when using NFS with Windoze, you basically have to
    > configure the xNIX machine to be trivially hackable via NFS. And that is if


    Explain "trivially hackable".

    > it works, often you get a load of other issues to boot.


    like?


    > Stick with Samba. Many setup larger parameters using ndd and tinker with
    > it, I have setup not very large systems having literally 100 active Samba


    100 clients at once would be impressive, in the 1980s with lantastic.

  15. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    Canuck57 wrote:
    >
    > "Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
    > news:g8d79e$rdg$3@reader1.panix.com...
    >> Per Espen Hagen wrote:
    >>> Hi,
    >>>
    >>> I have a 3-machine setup, centred around a Solaris 10 box. Among other
    >>> things, the Solaris machine acts as a file server, using NFS to a Linux
    >>> machine and Samba to a Windoze machine. This all works fine, with one
    >>> major exception: NFS (and local) accesses always seem to get priority
    >>> over Samba access, so Samba performance is sometimes more or less
    >>> unusable -- it slows down from 15-35 MB/s to 1 MB/s. Unfortunately one
    >>> of the main use cases is that the Linux box writes a bunch of big files
    >>> to the Solaris box over NFS, and the files are then accessed from the
    >>> Windows box over SMB. Changing the operating systems is not an option
    >>> here. In principle I could perhaps use Samba from the Linux side too,
    >>> but there's still the problem of local accesses on the Solaris machine.
    >>>
    >>> Any ideas? Are there any parameters I can tune to speed up Samba
    >>> transfers at the cost of NFS/local access?

    >>
    >> I'd ditch the samba crap and buy the Reflection NFS client for windows.

    >
    > Reflections is stupid priced and I have never seen NFS to MS-Windoze
    > workstations done in a secure manor. Cost, maintenance and security suffer
    > big time with the Reflections solution.


    $120 or so street price is too much for you?

    > NFS should only be used where the security systems of the client and host
    > are matched, look at it like NFS + NIS == SMB (Samba). The reflections is a
    > PITA to setup correctly, thus open insecure NFS mounts end up being added.


    you click setup, do some next next, tell it install as a client,next next
    done. If you want to, you can change buffer sizes or set caching
    parameters.

    It's really not that hard.

    > ---
    > MS-Windows for boys
    > X-Windows for men


    I think you mean X-windows is for men that like boys.

    http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix.../disaster.html



  16. Re: Samba vs NFS performance


    "Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
    news:g8n028$17b$3@reader1.panix.com...
    > Canuck57 wrote:
    >>
    >> "Gary R. Schmidt" wrote in message
    >> news:6h1bpvFhvo6jU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>> Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >>> [SNIP]
    >>>>
    >>>> the MS NFS client doesn't work correctly.
    >>> In what ways? (Not being snarky, I'd like to know, as it is in my
    >>> "required interoperability"set ATM, and I've not noticed anything -
    >>> which means I may not be looking at the right places.)
    >>>
    >>> Cheers,
    >>> Gary B-)

    >>
    >> It is probably like reflections. NFS is half baked with Windoze because
    >> the
    >> security layers. So when using NFS with Windoze, you basically have to
    >> configure the xNIX machine to be trivially hackable via NFS. And that is
    >> if

    >
    > Explain "trivially hackable".


    Simple, because 99% of the NFS installs towards windblows do (to get it to
    work):

    export: /home -o rw,root

    Hacking 101 tells you a .ssh key here, or a .rhosts or .netrc there is
    instant access. With a little setuid r00t! Don't have the ID? Create one
    locally is they put the pesky no-root access thing. Done, toast, pawned.
    Finding home paths, trivial. Ever hear of automount or autofs and a for
    loop in script? Quick find while you wait for crack.

    It isn't that NFS is bad, quite frankly I am a proponent of it provided it
    is used correctly. And if some M$ pan handler could have thought of a way
    to make Windbows integration uglier, I couldn't have topped him. But don't
    make a Windblows integration issue a UNIX/Linux security issue.

    Use Samba, read the docs, it can be more secure if done right. And it is
    easier to do it right via Samba. Cheaper too. And lets face it, windblows
    is forever and inevitably insecurable.

    ---
    Hard on the outside, soft 'n chewy in the inside.



  17. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    Canuck57 wrote:
    >
    > "Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
    > news:g8n028$17b$3@reader1.panix.com...
    >> Canuck57 wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Gary R. Schmidt" wrote in message
    >>> news:6h1bpvFhvo6jU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>> Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >>>> [SNIP]
    >>>>>
    >>>>> the MS NFS client doesn't work correctly.
    >>>> In what ways? (Not being snarky, I'd like to know, as it is in my
    >>>> "required interoperability"set ATM, and I've not noticed anything -
    >>>> which means I may not be looking at the right places.)
    >>>>
    >>>> Cheers,
    >>>> Gary B-)
    >>>
    >>> It is probably like reflections. NFS is half baked with Windoze because
    >>> the
    >>> security layers. So when using NFS with Windoze, you basically have to
    >>> configure the xNIX machine to be trivially hackable via NFS. And that is
    >>> if

    >>
    >> Explain "trivially hackable".

    >
    > Simple, because 99% of the NFS installs towards windblows do (to get it to
    > work):
    >
    > export: /home -o rw,root


    I'm not sure where you learned unix, but I can suggest you need to start
    over from scratch.

  18. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    Cydrome Leader wrote:

    > Canuck57 wrote:
    >
    >>"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
    >>news:g8n028$17b$3@reader1.panix.com...
    >>
    >>>Canuck57 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"Gary R. Schmidt" wrote in message
    >>>>news:6h1bpvFhvo6jU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>
    >>>>>Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >>>>>[SNIP]
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>the MS NFS client doesn't work correctly.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>In what ways? (Not being snarky, I'd like to know, as it is in my
    >>>>>"required interoperability"set ATM, and I've not noticed anything -
    >>>>>which means I may not be looking at the right places.)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Cheers,
    >>>>>Gary B-)
    >>>>
    >>>>It is probably like reflections. NFS is half baked with Windoze because
    >>>>the
    >>>>security layers. So when using NFS with Windoze, you basically have to
    >>>>configure the xNIX machine to be trivially hackable via NFS. And that is
    >>>>if
    >>>
    >>>Explain "trivially hackable".

    >>
    >>Simple, because 99% of the NFS installs towards windblows do (to get it to
    >>work):
    >>
    >>export: /home -o rw,root

    >
    >
    > I'm not sure where you learned unix, but I can suggest you need to start
    > over from scratch.


    Nobody said it SHOULD be done that way -- only that it often IS. We're
    talking about Windows here, and the people who support it.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

  19. Re: Samba vs NFS performance

    CJT wrote:
    > Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >
    >> Canuck57 wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
    >>>news:g8n028$17b$3@reader1.panix.com...
    >>>
    >>>>Canuck57 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>"Gary R. Schmidt" wrote in message
    >>>>>news:6h1bpvFhvo6jU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >>>>>>[SNIP]
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>the MS NFS client doesn't work correctly.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>In what ways? (Not being snarky, I'd like to know, as it is in my
    >>>>>>"required interoperability"set ATM, and I've not noticed anything -
    >>>>>>which means I may not be looking at the right places.)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Cheers,
    >>>>>>Gary B-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>It is probably like reflections. NFS is half baked with Windoze because
    >>>>>the
    >>>>>security layers. So when using NFS with Windoze, you basically have to
    >>>>>configure the xNIX machine to be trivially hackable via NFS. And that is
    >>>>>if
    >>>>
    >>>>Explain "trivially hackable".
    >>>
    >>>Simple, because 99% of the NFS installs towards windblows do (to get it to
    >>>work):
    >>>
    >>>export: /home -o rw,root

    >>
    >>
    >> I'm not sure where you learned unix, but I can suggest you need to start
    >> over from scratch.

    >
    > Nobody said it SHOULD be done that way -- only that it often IS. We're
    > talking about Windows here, and the people who support it.


    windows people should not be setting exports on a machine, anywhere.

+ Reply to Thread