Windows NT Server, on the other hand, continues to increase its performance up through test threads. We believe that we did not reach the true peak performance of the system under Windows NT Server 4.
Figure 2: Web Server Peak Performance larger numbers are better for all metrics. We tuned each operating system, file server, and Web server according to available documentation and tuning parameters available in published benchmarks. The Products Tested section gives the detailed operating system tuning we used. Although much has been written about the performance and stability of Linux, Samba, and Apache, our tests show that Windows NT Server 4.
The NetBench 5. Its primary performance metric is throughput in bytes per second. The NetBench documentation defines throughput as " The number of bytes a client transferred to and from the server each second. NetBench measures throughput by dividing the number of bytes moved by the amount of time it took to move them.
NetBench reports throughput as bytes per second. We tested file-sharing performance on Windows NT Server 4. We used Samba 2. Figure 3 shows the throughput we measured plotted against the number of test systems that participated in each data point. Figure 3 : NetBench Throughput Performance larger numbers are better.
Understanding how NetBench 5. NetBench stresses a file server by using a number of test systems to read and write files on a server. A NetBench test suite is made up of a number of mixes. A mix is a particular configuration of NetBench parameters, including the number of test systems used to load the server.
Typically, each mix increases the load on a server by increasing the number of test systems involved while keeping the rest of the parameters the same. TST test suite to increase the number of test systems to and the increment in test systems for each mix to 16 in order to test each product to its maximum performance level.
NetBench does a good job of testing a file server under heavy load. To do this, each NetBench test system called a client in the NetBench documentation executes a script that specifies a file access pattern. As the number of test systems is increased, the load on a server is increased.
You need to be careful, however, not to correlate the number of NetBench test systems participating in a test mix with the number of simultaneous users that a file server can support. This is because each NetBench test system represents more of a load than a single user would generate. NetBench was designed to behave this way in order to do benchmarking with as few test systems as possible while still generating large enough loads on a server to saturate it.
When comparing NetBench results, be sure to look at the configurations of the test systems because they have a significant effect on the measurements that NetBench makes.
For example, the test system operating system may cache some or all of the workspace in its own RAM causing the NetBench test program not to go over the network to the file server as frequently as expected.
This can significantly increase the reported throughput. If the same test systems and network components are used to test multiple servers with the same test suite configuration, you can make a fair comparison of the servers.
With this background, let us analyze what the results in Figure 3 mean the supporting details for this chart are in NetBench Configuration and Results. The three major areas to look at are: Peak Performance This tells you the maximum throughput you can expect from a file server. NetBench throughput is primarily a function of how quickly a file server responds to file operations from a given number of test systems.
So a more responsive file server will be able to handle more operations per second, which will yield higher throughput. How a product performs as a function of load is perhaps the most meaningful information NetBench produces.
If performance drops off rapidly after the peak, users may experience significant unpredictable and slow response times as the load on the server increases. On the other hand, a product whose performance is flat or degrades slowly after the peak can deliver more predictable performance under load.
How quickly these products reach their peak performance depends on the server hardware performance, the operating system performance, and the test system performance.
In this case, we tested a fast server platform with significantly slower clients. This test lab setup meant that small numbers of clients could not generate enough requests to utilize the server processors fully. So the part of the throughput performance curve to the left of the peak does not tell us anything of interest. The performance curve after the peak shows how a server behaves as it is overloaded.
Windows NT Server 4. Thus, Windows NT Server reached a peak performance level that was 2. The test results also show that Windows NT Server 4. The shapes of the performance curves for both Windows NT Server 4. Performance for both Windows NT Server 4. So both systems should deliver predictable performance even under overload conditions. The peak performance for Windows NT Server 4. This means that the Windows NT Server 4. In order to understand what the WebBench measurements mean you need to know how WebBench 2.
It stresses a Web server by using a number of test systems called clients in the WebBench documentation to request URLs.
Each WebBench test system can be configured to use multiple worker threads threads for short to make simultaneous Web server requests. By using multiple threads per test system, it is possible to generate a large enough load on a Web server to stress it to its limit with a reasonable number of test systems. The other factor that will determine how many test systems and how many threads per test system are needed to saturate a server is the performance of each test system.
The number of threads needed to obtain the peak server performance depends on the speed of the test systems and the server. SPEC SFS has had a noticeable effect on vendors of NFS file servers, motivating them to improve response time from an average of 50ms in to less than 10ms in Documents: Advanced Search Include Citations. Authors: Advanced Search Include Citations.
Network Appliance believes re-sponse time is as important a performance metric as throughput, especially in the highly interactive envi-ronment typical of CIFS networks, since throughput offers little solace to a user waiting to access a file.
This paper documents the methodology and tools de-veloped to measure response time during a NetBench run. While cumbersome and primitive, useful data has been produced, demonstrating that the fundamental idea is sound. SPEC SFS has had a noticeable effect on vendors of NFS file servers, motivating them to improve response time from an average of 50ms in to less than 10ms in
0コメント