EMC has blown a CIFS benchmark away with a result 2.7 times better than the previous record, but why is it bothering? The only other suppliers on the list are Apple, Fujitsu and Silicon Graphics. The benchmark is the SPECsfs2008 CIFS file access benchmark. There is a similar benchmark for NFS which is much more popular in terms …
This is actually rather bad for EMC
Using a setup that large and then yielding only three time the performance is not exactly something I would shop around.
I mean, how much was the Apple setup? 30k USD?
How much for the DMX? 3M USD?
Don't compare NFS vs CIFS results
In the article:
...and returned a throughput score of 18,784, 2.36 times less than the CIFS throughput score. As a crude comparison, let's suppose then that the EMC Celerra Gateway NS-8 set-up above would score proportionately the same in the NFS benchmark.
From the SPEC website referenced in the article:
SPECsfs2008 results may only be compared to other SPECsfs2008 results for the same protocol. SPECsfs2008_cifs and SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 are not comparable because they are generated using completely different workloads.
So, no, it's not a crude comparison. You can't just do maths and assume that the platforms perform identically with different protocols. Because none do. NFS (2/3) are much simpler protocols than CIFS and it can show on the throughputs on devices that support both (natively). Where non-native CIFS emulation (e.g. Samba) is involved I'd expect the difference to be orders of magnitude different.
Craptastic Implosive Failure System
So much fun running SMB, nevermind the fancy rebranding shuffle. It doesn't perform, never did, never will, and is so full of holes that exposing it to the wider internet ensures that installing a new windows box gets infected within 15 minutes on average, or well before it can download and install the requisite patches, nevermind the required rebooting a couple of times.
If that's all EMC can beat, then that isn't exactly worth a press release, unless they believe that any news at all must be good news.
Re: Don't compare NFS vs CIFS results
Couldn't agree more. These sorts of "leaps" of mathematics always smack of people who have never been involved in any real testing. It's one thing to make a leap within a single product or a vendor's line of products. It's another to assume that because one vendor saw a particular result, others will be the same.
I'm a big fan, El Reg. But this is the worst analysis ever.
EMC have posted a SPEC SFS2008 NFS Number
As far as I can tell it is the same configuration they used for their CIFS number. And interestingly it seems does not suffer the same differential between CIFS and NFS performance that Apple does.
Apple's number is surprising - given that OS X is based on BSD I would have expected it to do better with NFS than CIFS, not the other way around.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Review Tough Banana Pi: a Raspberry Pi for colour-blind diehards
- Product round-up Ten Mac freeware apps for your new Apple baby
- Analysis Pity the poor Windows developer: The tools for desktop development are in disarray
- Chromecast video on UK, Euro TVs hertz so badly it makes us judder – but Google 'won't fix'