Samba, netatalk and nfs, what is faster?

i have a RH9 box, with 3 1Gb nic's, connected to a 1Gb switch, i have
setup my samba, and nfs servers via GUI, the nfs looks ok, samba runs
slow, and netatalk looks ok too, but i didn't get the speed expected
yet, can anybody tell me if i need to do any aditional setup via
shell?, or what must i check too, thanks

elduran wrote:
> i have a RH9 box, with 3 1Gb nic's, connected to a 1Gb switch, i have
> setup my samba, and nfs servers via GUI, the nfs looks ok, samba runs
> slow, and netatalk looks ok too, but i didn't get the speed expected
> yet, can anybody tell me if i need to do any aditional setup via
> shell?, or what must i check too, thanks

Apart from Your question about performance speed, You should let us
know _what_ You want to do. There are many ways of sharing data, but
if You have to decide about the "best way", this really depends on
Your specific situation. - If any of Your shares will ever make it to
the "wild" (i.e., internet), none of the protocols above should ever
be used.

You say that You have three clients plus one switch on 1G, so why not
go testing for Yourself and tell us?

But I wasn't being unpolite, and to answer Your question: AFAIK, there
is no way to tweak the daemons in question better on the command line
than most GUI config tools do (which I never used, I must admit).
But it is always a good idea to review the GUI-tool generated files
to see what they really did to Your config. - Unless any braindead
options are activated, no, You should see those services at best
performance once You start them. Again, I recommend reconsidering un-
encrypted sharing, no matter what. On a 1G network, the process of
encrypting data may become significant depending on the hardware in
use, allright, but most people here would value security over speed.


Anyways, please think about this and come back, Jack.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My personal reading of the string "MicroSoft" expands to "NanoWeak"...

elduran wrote:
> i have a RH9 box, with 3 1Gb nic's, connected to a 1Gb switch, i have
> setup my samba, and nfs servers via GUI, the nfs looks ok, samba runs
> slow, and netatalk looks ok too, but i didn't get the speed expected
> yet, can anybody tell me if i need to do any aditional setup via
> shell?, or what must i check too, thanks


I would also be interested in hearing what numbers you are able to achieve.
But you may also have to consider the limitation of your disk I/O.

elduran wrote:
> i have a RH9 box, with 3 1Gb nic's, connected to a 1Gb switch, i have
> setup my samba, and nfs servers via GUI, the nfs looks ok, samba runs
> slow, and netatalk looks ok too, but i didn't get the speed expected
> yet, can anybody tell me if i need to do any aditional setup via
> shell?, or what must i check too, thanks

for nfs - 'man nfs'

Options
rsize=n The number of bytes NFS uses when reading files
from an
NFS server. The default value is dependent on
the ker-
nel, currently 1024 bytes. (However,
throughput is
improved greatly by asking for rsize=8192.)

wsize=n The number of bytes NFS uses when writing files
to an
NFS server. The default value is dependent on
the ker-
nel, currently 1024 bytes. (However,
throughput is
improved greatly by asking for wsize=8192.)

there may be others. check man.


--
Woolsey-Swanson Rule:
People would rather live with a problem they cannot solve
than accept a solution they cannot understand.

remove '.eh' to email

jack <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<c193sa$6eo$00$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> elduran wrote:
> > i have a RH9 box, with 3 1Gb nic's, connected to a 1Gb switch, i have
> > setup my samba, and nfs servers via GUI, the nfs looks ok, samba runs
> > slow, and netatalk looks ok too, but i didn't get the speed expected
> > yet, can anybody tell me if i need to do any aditional setup via
> > shell?, or what must i check too, thanks
>
> Apart from Your question about performance speed, You should let us
> know _what_ You want to do. There are many ways of sharing data, but
> if You have to decide about the "best way", this really depends on
> Your specific situation. - If any of Your shares will ever make it to
> the "wild" (i.e., internet), none of the protocols above should ever
> be used.
>
> You say that You have three clients plus one switch on 1G, so why not
> go testing for Yourself and tell us?
>
> But I wasn't being unpolite, and to answer Your question: AFAIK, there
> is no way to tweak the daemons in question better on the command line
> than most GUI config tools do (which I never used, I must admit).
> But it is always a good idea to review the GUI-tool generated files
> to see what they really did to Your config. - Unless any braindead
> options are activated, no, You should see those services at best
> performance once You start them. Again, I recommend reconsidering un-
> encrypted sharing, no matter what. On a 1G network, the process of
> encrypting data may become significant depending on the hardware in
> use, allright, but most people here would value security over speed.
>
>
> Anyways, please think about this and come back, Jack.

I want to use the Linux box as a video server to feed 2 video editing
rooms, i have a 4 HD raid 0 attached, i tried before playing video
between Macs using 1Gb nics and cat5 crossover cable, and i get clips
playing, but show me drop frames, so i think can be better using a
linux box, but i can't capture video to the array via samba, netatalk
or nfs, because don't get enough speed (to play dv video i just need
25 MB/sec), maybe am i doing something wrong in the configuration?, or
do i need to stop some services?, thanks