Many of the submissions on the above chart are for smaller systems.So the statistics comparing the two in this way must be considered preliminary, even though the above linear regression is very good (R**2 at ~0.98). There are fewer CIFS/SMB benchmark submissions than NFS and even fewer with the same exact hardware (only 13).18% and 9% READ and WRITE respectively NFS commands. Specifically, their CIFS/SMB workload does 20.5% and 8.6% READ_ANDX and WRITE_ANDX respectively CIFS commands vs. The SPECsfs2008 CIFS/SMB benchmark does slightly more read and slightly less write data operations than their corresponding NFS workloads.My response to them and my readers is that they both provide file access, to a comparable set of file data (we assume, see my previous post on What’s wrong with SPECsfs2008) and in many cases today, can provide access to the exact same file, using both protocols on the same storage system. CIFS/SMB is a stateful protocol and NFS is stateless and the corresponding commands act accordingly. The SPECsfs2008 organization has informed me (and posted on their website) that CIFS and NFS are not comparable.However, there are a few caveats about this and my other CIFS/SMB vs. The above shows that, on average, the CIFS/SMB protocol provides about 40% more (~36.9%) operations per second than NFS protocol does with the same hardware configuration. ![]() The one above shows the total number of NFS or CIFS/SMB operations per second on the two separate axes and provides a linear regression across the data. Both have historically indicated that CIFS/SMB had an advantage. NFS analysis, the one above and another that shows a ops/sec per spindle count analysis for all NFS and CIFS/SMB submissions. There are generally two charts I show in our CIFS/SMB vs. The information on the chart are taken from vendor submissions that used the same exact hardware configurations for both NFS and CIFS/SMB protocol SPECsfs2008 benchmark submissions. ![]() The above chart represents another in a long line of charts on the relative performance of CIFS versus NFS file interface protocols. SCISFS140326-001 (c) 2014 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |