Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] netatalk+asun benchmark (afp/tcp)
From: Nicolas MONNET (nico@idnet.fr)
Date: Wed Dec 31 1997 - 12:47:25 EST
On Wed, 31 Dec 1997, Dave Zarzycki wrote:
> > What OS???
>
> Linux 2.0.32
> RedHat Linux 5.0
> The kernel is the available in their Hurricane updates directory.
>
> >[snipped]
> >> test software: ThruPut 1.2
> > What is it?
> A very simple program that reads and write to files on a mounted volume
> to measure performance. When I did the test, I picked 4MB files and only
> to use one of them. That way the file would stay in the cache on the
> server, and we would spend more of our time transferring bits than
> negotiating which bits to transfer.
It's always interesting (if not essential) when you're talking
benchmarks to know exactly what the program is doing.
> >> results: 134Mb/s
> > Do you have any other thing to compare to?
>
> AppleShareIP 5.0.2 under the same circumstances (with less network cards
> of course) can/will saturate Fast Ethernet (100Mb/s) come January with
> new Apple servers. I wish I could say more, but I can't. (
> > As for any such benchmarks, the result depend of (in approximate
> >decreasing order of importance):
[snip]
> Ah, I would argue differently, unless you are speaking generally for any
> workstation and not a server.
>
> + Server OS (drivers, drivers, and optimization or lack there of.
> As far as I could tell, the tulip driver needs better optimization.)
Right, but I had Linux in mind, which uses all the ram it has for
buffering anyway.
> + Processor/cache (When I was doing the test, most of the time was spent
> in the system and not user space. I was processor bound when I got
> the numbers I did.)
Hm, from my experience I can bet that ram is the most important
factor. Of course, going from 32 meg to 64 meg makes much more difference
than going from 1gig to 2gigs. (As a web server, an old Sun w/ plenty of
ram does a good job.)
> + RAM (the more of it, the faster the server can do more at once)
No. It's all about cache.
> + Network card (servers spend most of their time pushing bits)
> Fast Ethernet == 100Mb/s or about 12MB/s
> Nearly all Ultra Wide SCSI drives today are 10-13MB/s
> If the data is in the cache/RAM, hard drive speed is irrelevant
If it is.
> + Disk (but when the data is not in the cache, it must be fetched from
> the disk ;-)
> + SCSI card
This one was silly in my list. The only interesting point is that
a good SCSI will not hog the CPU too much (it will handle most of the work
by itself). The same applies for the network adapter.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:28:34 EST