OSX 10.10 and SMB3

[cyberjock]

If you are stuck using SMB1 that is definitely a problem. SMB1 sucks. On XP you couldn't get much beyond 40MB/sec without serious problems. I was able to consistently hit 120MB/sec, and somewhere here I have a screenshot copying over Gb LAN where the speed was 131MB/sec. :D

As for what you are doing wrong, I don't know. I don't use OSX (I own zero Apple devices). I'd start with using Windows 7 (or 8/8.1 with max protocol set to SMB2) to see the performance you get. If possible use an SSD on your desktop/laptop and make sure your pool can provide the throughput you want to test. If that's okay then you'd have to look at what OSX is doing wrong (or at least what isn't optimized).

Big picture, getting 5% performance gains from jumbo frames is typically exaggerating the benefits of jumbo frames. The fact that you are getting 30% (assuming you are actually getting that kind of value from jumbo frames), tells me something is off with your network, somewhere.

 

[gordito4u]

Yeah yours is performing way better. I am lucky to get 1MB/s. I get about 900Mbps. I bumped the SMB settings max to SMB3 and tried that. When I tried SMB1 it was only like 400Mbps. I suspect the culprit is OSX. I will try one of my old windows 7 laptops tonight and share my findings. Thanks.

 

[cyberjock]

Does iperf testing saturate your LAN connections?

 

[gordito4u]

Man, I am loosing it a little. Guess it is a Monday. Yeah I am seeing 936 Mbits/sec which is full speed with iPerf. That is what I was seeing while copying to my freenas too (roughly). Without jumbo I get about 800Mbps and with I get about 900Mbps. Like you said not a huge difference. Thanks for the tips and patience. :)

 

[gordito4u]

Unfortunately files are still disappearing. :(

 

[cyberjock]

I'd try a Windows client if you have one. At least you would be able to validate if its a problem that is from the Mac or a problem that seems to be something that is in common with both clients.

 

[gordito4u]

I think I finally figured out this issue. I had my CIFs data set set to a Mac file share type. I changed it to windows and now things seem much better.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I must be doing something wrong then because I am seeing a bump of about 30% improvement. What would a good CIFs throughput be? Any ideas what could help boost performance? I suspect OSX is a huge part of the problem.

Hi,
just for FYI, I have OS X 10.10, Samba on Freenas with SMB2 as the max. protocol, no jumbo frames and constant throughput of 117 MB/s.
Used to be the same with OS X 10.9.
But this is only when transferring _from_ Mac to FreeNAS. The opposite direction is much slower and the rates jump between 1 MB/s and maybe 80 MB/s. I guess this might have to do with non existent trimming of the SDD, but didn't care so far.

How do you expect LACP to increase performance on a _single_ connection? (or am I getting it wrong...)

To find the issue for your problem I'd start with benchmarking of your LAN connection (some sort of netcat, excluding disk I/O on both sides, and in both directions, and if this shows sufficient throughput, doing the same with writing to disk on one side. Again in both directions).

Another cause might be a full disk on either side - search the net for how drastically I/O drops when Filesystems go over 90%...

 

[Savage]

Was that problem system a hackintosh or real mac per-chance? There have been plenty of instances of jumbo-frame / file sharing reliability issues when semi-supported, realtek or even certain Intel NICs are in play on the client side of things. W/ hacks.

 

[gordito4u]

It is a real mac. Jumbo frames really are not a good option unless you have a second NIC in all of the systems that are connected to the NAS / Jumbo frame network so I had to abandon that. Also with the latest patches a lot of my issues seemed to have disappeared.