Home Forums OS X Server and Client Discussion File Serving Testing AFP with Bonnie++

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #375719
    amsterdam
    Participant

    I’m looking to implement an iSCSI-based backend storage system for our next server rollout this summer. I want to gather some benchmarking data to compare how the new setup would perform compared to the current one.

    My plan is to use Bonnie++ to test our current network fileshares, but I’m running into problems. I can compile Bonnie++ using Macports and run it on the local filesystem, but when I try to run a small test on a AFP share, Bonnie++ reports:

    [code]
    $ /opt/local/bin/bonnie++ -s 10M -d [AFP share]
    Writing a byte at a time…done
    Writing intelligently…done
    Rewriting…done
    Reading a byte at a time…done
    Reading intelligently…done
    start ’em…done…done…done…done…done…
    Create files in sequential order…done.
    Stat files in sequential order…done.
    Delete files in sequential order…Bonnie: drastic I/O error (rmdir): Directory not empty
    Cleaning up test directory after error.
    [/code]

    Has anyone been able to use Bonnie++ to test their network filesystems?

    Here are some notes:
    1. Bonnie, the original version from the 1990s works fine on the AFP shares, but doesn’t have as robust a feature set
    2. I tried testing on an AFP share that was world-writeable, so no permissions issues
    3. Can’t find any errors in the logs on either server or client
    4. Current system is a 10.5.6 G5 Xserve with an XRAID

    Any help is appreciated, as well as other ideas for benchmarking/testing.

    thanks!

    #375728
    amsterdam
    Participant

    It seems the problem was because Bonnie++ likes to create 1024 zero-length files as part of its test. It puts these in one sub-directory. However, if I set the test to split these files out in 100 different sub-directories, it seems to work fine. Perhaps a limitation with AFP?

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed