In this instance we are going to benchmark, sequential read, sequential write, random read, and random write with IOzone, these are defined as below from the IOzone documentation. This was run against both linux-server and windows-server by simply changing the mount point and xls file to write to as needed.
Here are the results of our sequential write, sequential read, random write and random read tests on NFS mounts provided by both Windows and Linux NFS servers. The graphs can be found below, however if you are interested in the raw data you can download a copy of the spreadsheets that IOzone generated, all values are in KB. In the graphs that follow as a result of the IOzone benchmarks, it is important to understand the three different metrics that are shown.
As can be seen here, the Windows NFS server seems to ramp up in speed over time as the file size and record size get larger, the top speed of the largest files being slightly faster than the Linux NFS server. However the clear winner here is the Linux NFS server, which is sequentially writing much faster and more consistently overall on the smaller file sizes as well.
The top speed on the Linux NFS server may be slightly slower than the Windows NFS server, however this seems to only be under that particular scenario of a large file size. For general overall use, NFS on Linux is performing better over a larger range of file sizes in terms of sequential write speed.
These two read tests are fairly even, which is expected with read speed as this is typically faster than writing. The network bandwidth between the two servers was essentially topped out in the test environment during these tests which is why both of the above graphs show as being quite flat.
What is interesting here is that despite them both completely saturating the network connection at times, there are far more dips in the Windows NFS server test, while the Linux NFS server in comparison is producing a more overall stable sequential read speed.
At first glance this looks pretty similar to the first Windows sequential write test, however this graph does not show the large file size with low record size as it dips down. To show this I have changed the perspective of the graph below, allowing us to see that the random write speed of large files with a low record size drops in performance.
Below is the same graph with the perspective change that was done for the Windows graph for a fair comparison. As shown above, the Linux random write test only dips down a small amount during large files with a low record size, which seems insignificant when compared to the same test performed on the Windows NFS server.
From this we can see that the random write speed of large files with a small record size is significantly faster on the Linux NFS server, as well as overall write speeds. Windows random write speed was a little faster on the larger files with large record sizes compared to Linux however.
To adequately see the performance in this test I have included two graphs again so that all data can be seen from different perspectives. As shown in the graphs above the random read performance of the Windows NFS server is all over the place, with a trend towards better performance with larger files and record sizes. For a fair comparison with Windows I have also provided a second graph of the same test so that all of the graph can be seen.
The results here are much smoother indicating a more consistent result in performance as the file size and record size increases when compared to Windows. The Linux results also show faster maximum speeds this time. I did originally plan to also perform the same tests from a Windows client, however I had problems getting Windows to correctly mount the NFS version 4.
I proceeded to investigate possible reasons for the performance difference. From my research Microsoft implemented NFS 4. I was not able to confirm if this was implemented in R2, I am assuming that it is not as I could not find anything saying that it was present. The results were essentially the same, so despite Windows possibly not having pNFS it does not appear to be the reason for it performing worse during my testing.
There may also be some difference between the performance of the file system on the actual disk, so in this case the differences between NTFS windows-server and XFS linux-server. As shown in our various tests, NFS on a Linux server consistently outperforms its Windows based counterpart in most of the read and write tests.
That might indicate problems with throughput. If you can narrow that down you'll increase your chances of fixing the right problem. If you go at this like you would a game of whack-a-mole, you might spend a lot of time and maybe money fixing the wrong things. CIFS can push enough data for one person to watch video. It is well advised that I avoid it at all costs for both copying files and playback over the network.
It has no south bridge or any of the hardware that would typically offload things off the CPU. The one and only thing the C does is decode HD video with a chip. That's it. That being said it's a very slow CPU.
Just enough to play video, nothing else. That's all the unit is for. It's implementation and overhead of Samba is just very slow. It is also Wifi-n has a 3-antenna add-in card that I installed. Now mind you yes, wifi-g or wifi-n will both easily handle a 5GB file over 90 minutes. The C however is not a full computer. It needs to receive packets, decode, assemble and feed to the hardware HD decoder.
For the extremely low powered unit, it does what it does pretty well. I have an xbox, ps3, wii, etc. Everyone always tells me just use the xbox. Bottom line is the C has many other features supports apps , has hotswappable internal HDs, a blu-ray drive and has a plethora of control options including my android phone from across the planet. I wish I could remember the name of the NFS server I got but it was free and the icon is blue and red. So I just FTP the movies to the internal drive and watch them all locally lately anyhow.
That said, the internal will fill up and I'll need to go back to NFS from one of my other boxes. So if someone uses a good free NFS for win7 then I'd love to know the name of it.
Thanks for the advice! You store and stream your video uncompressed? That seems odd to me. The popcorn hour is both a NFS server, and a client. I tried not compressing all my blu-rays. I tried playing this over wifi mostly jokingly expecting the c to pull off some kind of magical trick and actually play it. It does play it, but it's a bit studdery. Though I'm trying to play it as I mentioned, via a samba mount. That is, the popcorn hour unit is mounting a windows share via samba over wifi.
I heard that if I use the NFS protocol instead of Samba, because the popcorn hour does not handle samba well, I would get double the transfer speed. I verified this as I said by FTPing to the unit. Via samba my transfers were always half the speed of the FTP speed. That tells me, for whatever reason, samba is pretty slow on the popcorn hour. I tried the Win7 NFS client and it wasnt that great. So dont be too quick to drop your samba server, even if you find a client.
I think cygwin has a NFS client and server now. However the client is just the cusp of the problem. There's also aligning the unix permissions with the windows ones which is non-trivial. Sign up to join this community.
The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group.
Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Are there any free NFS clients for Windows 7? Ask Question. Asked 11 years, 3 months ago. Active 2 years, 2 months ago. Viewed k times. ThatGraemeGuy Niels van Reijmersdal Niels van Reijmersdal 1 1 gold badge 4 4 silver badges 8 8 bronze badges.
Its called market segmentation, companies suck when they do it but hey can't get anything for free they say. I don't know why you want to get rid of the middle system though. If it works it works. If its for a job then the person should just upgrade, else if its personal why not setup a samba server instead of an nfs one? If you have a production need for it, shouldn't you pay for it?
If you ever need support you'll definitely want a company that you can call. Windows NFS client does not support utf8 filenames.
0コメント