# mount-smbfs performance vs. gnome2 FUSE and FreeBSD vs Linux



## user00 (Mar 31, 2014)

This is the issue I observed in Linux for a long time, but the numbers are different.

In Linux file transfers to/from Windows machines over 1 Gbit network reached 4-5 MB/s over `mount_cifs` and 20 MB/s over gnome FUSE.
But if I shared a folder on a Linux machine with Samba and initiated a transfer from Windows, then it would reach 70-80 MB/s w/o jumbo frames, and 100-120 MB/s when jumbo frames were turned on on both sides - as fast as Windows to Windows!

In FreeBSD 10 transfers to/from Windows over mount_smbfs reach 15 MB/s and over gnome2 FUSE 45 MB/s. A huge improvement over Linux, but still nowhere close to Windows.

Both machines run same hardware: AMD A6 APU, A75 chipset, Realtek 8111F NICs (onboard).

I have looked into the Linux copy of `mount_cifs` source code and the only thing I could pick out after 10-15 min of staring was that it allocated, zeroed and freed a buffer for every IP packet. This would slow things down. I am sure Windows keeps a fixed pre-allocated memory area locked and simply writes/reads blocks into that area.

Somehow Samba is able to serve files at the same top speed as Windows.
Somehow FUSE is 5-10x times faster than mount_smbfs(8).

If mount_smbfs(8) is not abandoned, would it be at all possible to port Samba or at the very least FUSE code over? It is simply painful to move data across 1 Gbit network at a rate of 100 Mbit!


----------



## user00 (Apr 14, 2014)

*Re: mount-smbfs performance vs. gnome2 FUSE and FreeBSD vs L*

This is not getting too much attention, probably because this is the wrong venue for contacting the developers. How can I bring this to their attention?


----------



## wblock@ (Apr 14, 2014)

*Re: mount-smbfs performance vs. gnome2 FUSE and FreeBSD vs L*

Possibly the freebsd-net mailing list.


----------



## user00 (Apr 17, 2014)

*Re: mount-smbfs performance vs. gnome2 FUSE and FreeBSD vs L*

I tried. They do not accept my emails as the mail server does not have a reverse DNS record. Guess I'll leave this at that.


----------

