File Server Performance Test - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 12
About This Presentation
Title:

File Server Performance Test

Description:

... staff to recover one and a half hours per day previously lost to delays and downtime. ... of losing data' that this is an acceptable risk for the user. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:104
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 13
Provided by: phillipfri
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: File Server Performance Test


1
File Server Performance Test
June 7, 2004
  • Windows Server 2003 Standard vs Samba 3.0 on Red
    Hat Enterprise Server 3

2
Veritest Windows File Server Performance
Comparison
Microsoft commissioned Veritest to conduct a
series of tests comparing the File serving
performance of Windows Server 2003 Standard to
Samba 3.0 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES 3.0 on
two hardware configurations 1) Small Business
Configuration single processor, single disk.
Dell PowerEdge 500SC 2) Medium
Business/Departmental dual processor, disk
array. HP DL380 G3
What is the purpose of this File Server
performance test?
Build Test Around Realistic File Server Scenarios
for Small, Medium, and Departmental/Remote Office
Use
Test Objectives
Demonstrate Flexibility to Configure Windows for
Optimal Performance
Compare Samba 3.0 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux and
Windows Server 2003 for File Serving Performance
Since 1987, VeriTest has provided outsourced
testing solutions that maximize revenue and
reduce costs for our clients. VeriTest helps
our clients identify and correct technology
problems in their products and in their line of
business applications. VeriTest is a division of
Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., a provider of
globalization solutions.
Ensure Independent 3rd Party Verification of
Results (Veritest)
3
Results Single Processor, Single Disk
  • Windows Server 2003 outperformed Samba 3.0 on Red
    Hat Enterprise Server 3
  • With similar SMB_COM_Flush configuration as
    Samba, Windows Server 2003 outperforms by as much
    as 54
  • With default configuration, Windows Server 2003
    outperforms by as much as 20

Flexibility With the software update, Windows
Server 2003 allows administrators to change the
default behavior for the SMB_COM_Flush command
forcing the command to respond immediately
without writing to disk.
Windows Server 2003 vs. Samba 3.0 File Serving
Performance Tests conducted on Dell PowerEdge
500SC
Data security Unlike Sambas default
configuration, Windows Server 2003 ensures that
all data is written to disk by issuing the
SMB_COM_FLUSH command this causes the SMB
server to write all of the data and allocation
information for a particular file (or all files
open for a particular connection) to disk and
prevents data loss.
Throughput in Mbps
Windows Server 2003 Software Update
Windows Server 2003
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 -
Samba 3.0
(Strict sync no)
of Clients
The per client load on the filer server in this
test represents more than the per client load on
the file server in a real-world situation. So 24
clients on the chart below actually represents
more than 24 clients (potentially up to 4x). In
these real-world situations, this hardware
configuration is not realistic most dedicated
file servers would have multiple disks.
4
Results Dedicated File Serving (Departmental)
  • Windows Server 2003 outperformed Samba 3.0 on Red
    Hat Enterprise Server 3
  • With similar SMB_COM_Flush configuration as
    Samba, Windows Server 2003 outperforms by as much
    as 54
  • With default configuration, Windows Server 2003
    outperforms by as much as 40

Flexibility With the software update, Windows
Server 2003 allows administrators to change the
default behavior for the SMB_COM_Flush command
forcing the command to respond immediately
without writing to disk. This configuration is
appropriate for certain scenarios where the
performance benefits may outweigh the risk of
data loss
Windows Server 2003 vs. Samba 3.0 File Serving
Performance Conducted on HP DL380
1000
900
800
700
Data security Unlike Sambas default
configuration, Windows Server 2003 ensures that
all data is written to disk by issuing the
SMB_COM_FLUSH command this causes the SMB
server to write all of the data and allocation
information for a particular file (or all files
open for a particular connection) to disk and
prevents data loss.
Throughput in Mbps
600
500
400
300
200
Windows Server 2003 Software Update
Windows Server 2003
100
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 -
Samba 3.0
(Strict sync no)
0
1
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
of Clients
The per client load on the filer server in this
test represents more than the per client load on
the file server in a real-world situation. So 24
clients on the chart below actually represents
more than 24 clients (potentially up to 4x). In
these real-world situations, this hardware
configuration is not realistic most dedicated
file servers would have multiple disks.
5
Value Driven File Sharing
How can File Serving be improved beyond
performance?
Simple File Serving
Increase End User Value Through Value Driven File
Sharing
  • Value Driven File Sharing
  • Data Availability
  • Service Maintenance
  • Performance
  • Secure Data
  • End User Value
  • Simple File Serving
  • Store files in a single place
  • Share files
  • Backup Files

6
Supporting Customer Data
  • Cuna Mutual Group
  • Windows Server 2003 enabled seamless directory
    support for its network and remote users,
    improved storage efficiency, and remote
    administration capabilities
  • "After taking a thorough look at other solutions
    available, including open source alternatives, we
    decided to go with Windows Server 2003 for our
    file and print services. --- Dan Zadra, Senior
    Systems Manager, Technical Services, CUNA Mutual
    Group
  • Computer Builders Warehouse
  • Migrated from Linux to Windows Server 2003
    increased performance, scalability and security
  • "We now have twice the number of stores and twice
    the number of internal users that we had on the
    Linux infrastructure, yet we're supporting them
    with half the hardware we used before, thanks to
    Windows Server 2003. If we'd stayed on Linux,
    instead of halving our hardware, we'd have had to
    double it." --- Nicholas Brookins, IT Director
  • Aurora First Assembly Church
  • Migrating from Linux and Novell to Windows Server
    2003 operating system provided reliable, scalable
    infrastructure services that the church could
    depend on now and as demands on the system grow
  • Now, instead of chasing down information or
    waiting for the network to come back up, the 40
    end users on our staff can accomplish what must
    be done and start working on special projects we
    never could get to previously. Our new network
    enables each member of our office staff to
    recover one and a half hours per day previously
    lost to delays and downtime. That's real
    productivity savings." --- Myra Beals, Office
    Manager

7
Key Sound Bites
  • Windows Server 2003 delivered approximately 46
    percent better peak file server throughput
    compared to Samba 3.0 running on the
    departmental-class HP DL 380 server configuration
    we tested.
  • Windows Server 2003 delivered approximately 24
    percent better peak File server throughput
    compared to Samba 3.0 running on the
    workgroup-class Dell PowerEdge 500SC server
    configuration we tested.
  • Adding the software update to the Windows Server
    2003 Standard Edition generated 59 percent better
    peak File server throughput compared to Samba 3.0
    running on the workgroup-class Dell PowerEdge
    500SC server configuration we tested with strict
    syncno.
  • Additionally, we noticed a discernable dip in
    the throughput performance when running Samba 3.0
    in this configuration on the HP DL380 system at
    loads of 52 clients and above. We ran this test
    multiple times with the server and client tunings
    described in this report as well as with no
    server or client tunings and always saw the drop
    off in performance towards the end of the test
    suite

8
Appendix
9
File Serving Performance Test Summary
Test Overview
  • Using Ziff Davis Medias NetBench 7.02, two
    hardware scenarios were used to compare the file
    serving throughput of Windows Server 2003 vs. Red
    Hat Enterprise Linux ES with Samba 3.0
  • Small Business Scenario Dell PowerEdge 500SC
    (single Intell PIII _at_ 1GHz 1 GB RAM 20 GB IDE,
    Dual NIC)
  • Medium Business/Remote/Departmental Scenario HP
    DL380 (Dual P4 _at_ 2.8 GHz 4 GB RAM, SCSI disk
    array)

Results Summary
  • Windows Server 2003 outperforms Red Hat 3.0/Samba
    3.0 by as much as 54
  • When matching Samba 3.0 defaults assuming stable
    storage, Windows Server 2003 delivers 54 better
    peak file server throughput (See Point A)
  • By default, Windows Server 2003 balances high
    performance while insuring that data is securely
    stored on disk. In this case, Windows Server 2003
    had 40 higher peak file server throughput for
    the high end scenario (Points C D) and 20
    higher throughput (Point ?) in the low-end
    scenario

Small Business Scenario Single Processor, Single
Disk
Medium Business/Departmental Scenario
Dual-Processor, Disk Array
Windows Server 2003 vs. Samba 3.0 File Serving
Performance
Windows Server 2003 vs. Samba 3.0 File Serving
Performance
400
C
350
A
300
D
B
250
200
E
Throughput in Mbps
Throughput in Mbps
150
100
Windows Server 2003 - software update
Windows Server 2003 - software update
Windows Server 2003
50
Windows Server 2003
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 -
Samba 3.0
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 -
Samba 3.0
0
1
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
Number of Clients
Number of Clients
Highlights
Highlights
Windows Server 2003 peak throughput level is 20
greater than Red Hat Linux Enterprise Server 3.0
and Samba 3.0. While no accurate estimates of
the number of real production clients are
simulated by each NetBench client, this maybe
represented as a few users to more than 10 users
for each NetBench client tested. When file server
performance is a priority, both hardware and
software are tuned to meet this priority.
Windows Server 2003 default behavior ensures that
data in memory is flushed to disk whenever an
application makes this request. On single disk
systems, the disk will ultimately become a
bottle-neck. When Windows Server 2003 is
configured like Samba 3.0s default behavior, It
outperforms Samba 3.0 by 54 and maintains peak
throughput levels longer.
Windows Server 2003 delivers greater peak
performance than Samba 3.0 and Red Hat Enterprise
Server 3.0, along with the ability to configure
the file server for greater flexibility. When
server hardware is configured for multiple disks,
Windows Server 2003 delivers better performance
than Samba 3.0 and Red Hat Enterprise Server 3.0
no matter how you balance performance with data
security. And, this performance advantage is
sustained throughout the testing.
D
A
E
B
C
Source Veritest Windows Server 2003 vs. Red Hat
Linux 3.0 with Samba 3.0
10
Background on Performance Testing
Why Performance Test?
When is Performance a Priority?
  • In general, performance is a priority in Medium
    and Enterprise businesses with File Print or
    Dedicated File Servers
  • Performance Test for Planning
  • Optimize Hardware, Server OS, and Client OS
  • Evaluate Existing Hardware
  • Understand File Server Limits
  • Determine RAM CPU specs
  • Verify improvements in OS performance
  • Determine storage specification
  • Performance Test as a Competitive Differentiator
  • Platform Choice
  • Workload Requirements
  • Understanding OS Limits

Segment
Server Role
Server Role Details
Single Server Environment Priority on
Applications Lower priority on file server
performance
Multi-workload Server
Small Business
Departmental Branch Office Business Critical
Data End-user Productivity High Availability High
Priority on Performance
File Print Server
Med Business
Business Critical Data End-user Productivity High
Availability Ease of Management High Priority on
Performance
Dedicated File Server
Enterprise Business
What is the purpose for this latest File Server
performance test?
How can File Serving be improved beyond
performance?
  • Value Driven File Sharing
  • Integrated Directory Services (AD)
  • Transparent data access (DFS)
  • End-user data recovery (Shadow Copy)
  • Integrated Collaboration (SharePoint)
  • Off-line File Access (ReDirected MyDocs)

Simple File Serving
Build Test Around Realistic File Server Scenarios
for Small, Medium, and Departmental/Remote Office
Use
Test Objectives
Demonstrate Flexibility to Configure Windows for
Optimal Performance
Compare Samba 3.0 and Red Hat Linux and Windows
Server 2003 for File Serving Performance
Deliver End User Value Through Value Driven File
Sharing
  • Value Driven File Sharing
  • Data Availability
  • Service Maintenance
  • Performance
  • Secure Data
  • End User Value
  • Simple File Serving
  • Store files in a single place
  • Share files
  • Backup Files

Ensure Independent 3rd Party Verification of
Results (Veritest)
11
Considerations Default Data Settings for Samba
vs. Linux
  • Windows Server 2003 and Samba 3.0 have different
    default configurations for the way that they
    handle client requests to flush data
  • Samba 3.0 tries to balance Unix and Windows
    behavior by allowing the Linux file system to
    determine when to sync data to disk. By default,
    client application requests to flush data to disk
    are ignored.
  • Windows Server 2003 allows the client application
    to communicate with the operating system when it
    expects the data to be on stable storage,
    insuring that all client application requests to
    flush data to disk are honored.

Issue
Default Perspective
  • Samba View By default, do not honor client
    requests to flush data
  • Many Windows applications (including the Windows
    98 explorer shell) seem to confuse flushing
    buffer contents to disk with doing a sync to
    disk. Under UNIX, a sync call forces the process
    to be suspended until the kernel has ensured that
    all outstanding data in kernel disk buffers has
    been safely stored onto stable storage. This is
    very slow and should only be done rarely.
    Setting this parameter to no (the default) means
    that smbd ignores the Windows applications
    requests for a sync call. There is only a
    possibility of losing data if the operating
    system itself that Samba is running on crashes,
    so there is little danger in this default
    setting. -- From Samba Documentation smb.conf
    file
  • Windows Server 2003 By default, Applications can
    be assured that data in memory has been safely
    stored on disk.
  • The current behavior of the SMB_COM_FLUSH command
    causes the SMB server to write all of the data
    and allocation information for a particular file
    (or all files open for a particular connection)
    to be written to disk.

Samba 3.0 is, on the simplest level, an SMB
redirector for the integration of UNIX and Linux
with Windows for file and print services,. As
such, Samba relies on the underlying UNIX
operating system to ensure that data is actually
stored securely on disk. Differences in the
Windows and UNIX worlds result in Samba needing
to strike a balance, choosing a default behavior
that favors performance over insuring that data
in memory is actually stored to disk. Samba
cannot know if a file server or disk subsystem is
adequately protected against potentially
destructive events such as a power outage, Samba
assumes that because there is only a
possibility of losing data that this is an
acceptable risk for the user. Windows Server
2003 honors a client applications interest in
knowing that its data has been securely store on
disk and assumes that no risk of data corruption
or data loss is acceptable to the user. In the
case where the user has rationalized both the
security of their hardware and the value of their
data, Windows Sever 2003 now provides the ability
for the user to choose to have the server ignore
client requests for a flush to disk.
Discussion
Configuration Option
Description
OS
Default Behavior
Value set to non-zero value The file server is
treated as stable storage and the SMB server
will immediately respond to SMB_COM_FLUSH
commands without writing data to disk. Value set
to zero The SMB server will write data to disk
in response to SMB_COM_FLUSH commands before
responding.
New SRV.SYS And Registry Change HostTreatedAsStabl
eStorage
Honors Client intent to flush data to stable
storage
Windows
Does not honor Client requests to flush to stable
storage
Strict Sync No The SMB server will ignore disk
sync requests. Strict SyncYes The SMB will write
to disk all requests for a disk sync
Samba Linux
Strict Sync
12
(No Transcript)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com