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