Summary
Since I now have data runs for both protocols that do not include client-side caching, this comparison should be a lot easier. So far we have learned that NCP overall is better than CIFS for the kinds of file-access our users do most. I expect this to show here as well. Earlier tests showed that NCP-on-Linux (cached) is better than CIFS-on-NetWare (cached), and NCP-on-Linux (uncached) is better than NCP-on-NetWare (uncached). Since I've already shown that NCP-on-NetWare is better than CIFS-on-Linux, and NCP-on-Linux is better than NCP-on-NetWare, it is a foregone conclusion that CIFS-on-Linux will be worse than NCP-on-NetWare.
But by how much? Same OS back end for the two, so lets go see!
Write Tests
The Write test turned in an overall performance increase of 17% for using NCP versus CIFS. Like the previous NCP vs. CIFS comparisons, the differences in performance are very visible in the Record Size scale. The 4K record size shows a performance increase of 97%, 8K at 95%, 16K at 59%, 32K at 44%, and 64K at 13%. After 64K CIFS starts performing better. Each progressive record size up to 16M gets a little bit worse for NCP, until it gets to 16M and has a performance hit of -13%. The file-sizes show a similar but flatter curve, with the inflection between NCP vs CIFS occurring between the 16M and 32M file-sizes. The 64K files perform 75% faster, and the 512M files perform 6% slower.
The ski-jump look of the graph shows it all right there. As with the previous NCP vs CIFS, file-size doesn't have a LOT to do with performance, but it does have an impact. The slope of the 4K line shows that the larger file-sizes probably wouldn't be able to match NCP's performance for the smaller files.
The Re-Writer test showed an overall improvement of NCP over CIFS by 16%, a bit lower than the Writer performance. This was also reflected in the record-size and file-size performances. The movement isn't great, but it does suggest that CIFS contains slightly better metadata-handling than NCP.
The Random Write test showed an overall improvement of NCP over CIFS by 4%. The reason for the poorer showing is that NCP's small record-size performance that did so well in the Writer and Re-Writer tests, isn't nearly as good on this test. The same ski-jump is visible in the graph, but not to the same slope.
The Record Rewrite test showed an overall improvement of NCP over CIFS by 6%. Like the Random Write test, NCP wasn't able to show the stellar performance at the smaller record-sizes that it showed on the Write test. The inflection point is between the 64K and 128K record-sizes.
Read Tests
The Reader test turned in an average performance boost for using NCP of 6%. Like the earlier test comparing CIFS-on-Linux to NCP-on-NetWare, there isn't a strong correlation with record-size and performance.
The performance was almost entirely better than CIFS, but in many cases only by a few percentage points.
The Re-Reader test performed much the same as the Reader test, and posted a performance increase of only 5%. Like the re-writer test, this is probably due to better meta-data handling in CIFS than with NCP. The data looks much like the Reader chart in shape and form.
The Random Read test posted a performance boost of 4%. NCP performed a bit better (up to 9%) at the smaller record sizes, but overall performance was generally just a few points above the break-even line.
The Backward Read test turned in a performance boost of 5%. As with most CIFS tests, NCP performed better at smaller record sizes. As with the Random Read test, performance was overall better than CIFS by only a few points on most of the chart.
Conclusions
While CIFS has NCP beat on writes to large files, NCP has CIFS beat on reads. This matches earlier results. In fact, NCP-on-Linux is better than NCP-on-NetWare enough that the large file reads are now above the 1.00 line. Novell has done a good job getting NCP ported to Linux.
Which protocol to use depends on what you are going to use the server for. For general office file-server usage, NCP is by far the better protocol. For GIS, large DB, or other large media files, CIFS probably is the better choice in those cases. In our case, though, NCP's access patterns fit our usage patterns better.
Summary
Since I now have data runs for both protocols that do not include client-side caching, this comparison should be a lot easier. So far we have learned that NCP overall is better than CIFS for the kinds of file-access our users do most. I expect this to show here as well. Earlier tests showed that NCP-on-Linux (cached) is better than CIFS-on-NetWare (cached), and NCP-on-Linux (uncached) is better than NCP-on-NetWare (uncached). Since I've already shown that NCP-on-NetWare is better than CIFS-on-Linux, and NCP-on-Linux is better than NCP-on-NetWare, it is a foregone conclusion that CIFS-on-Linux will be worse than NCP-on-NetWare.
But by how much? Same OS back end for the two, so lets go see!
Write Tests
The Write test turned in an overall performance increase of 17% for using NCP versus CIFS. Like the previous NCP vs. CIFS comparisons, the differences in performance are very visible in the Record Size scale. The 4K record size shows a performance increase of 97%, 8K at 95%, 16K at 59%, 32K at 44%, and 64K at 13%. After 64K CIFS starts performing better. Each progressive record size up to 16M gets a little bit worse for NCP, until it gets to 16M and has a performance hit of -13%. The file-sizes show a similar but flatter curve, with the inflection between NCP vs CIFS occurring between the 16M and 32M file-sizes. The 64K files perform 75% faster, and the 512M files perform 6% slower.
The ski-jump look of the graph shows it all right there. As with the previous NCP vs CIFS, file-size doesn't have a LOT to do with performance, but it does have an impact. The slope of the 4K line shows that the larger file-sizes probably wouldn't be able to match NCP's performance for the smaller files.
The Re-Writer test showed an overall improvement of NCP over CIFS by 16%, a bit lower than the Writer performance. This was also reflected in the record-size and file-size performances. The movement isn't great, but it does suggest that CIFS contains slightly better metadata-handling than NCP.
The Random Write test showed an overall improvement of NCP over CIFS by 4%. The reason for the poorer showing is that NCP's small record-size performance that did so well in the Writer and Re-Writer tests, isn't nearly as good on this test. The same ski-jump is visible in the graph, but not to the same slope.
The Record Rewrite test showed an overall improvement of NCP over CIFS by 6%. Like the Random Write test, NCP wasn't able to show the stellar performance at the smaller record-sizes that it showed on the Write test. The inflection point is between the 64K and 128K record-sizes.
Read Tests
The Reader test turned in an average performance boost for using NCP of 6%. Like the earlier test comparing CIFS-on-Linux to NCP-on-NetWare, there isn't a strong correlation with record-size and performance.
The performance was almost entirely better than CIFS, but in many cases only by a few percentage points.
The Re-Reader test performed much the same as the Reader test, and posted a performance increase of only 5%. Like the re-writer test, this is probably due to better meta-data handling in CIFS than with NCP. The data looks much like the Reader chart in shape and form.
The Random Read test posted a performance boost of 4%. NCP performed a bit better (up to 9%) at the smaller record sizes, but overall performance was generally just a few points above the break-even line.
The Backward Read test turned in a performance boost of 5%. As with most CIFS tests, NCP performed better at smaller record sizes. As with the Random Read test, performance was overall better than CIFS by only a few points on most of the chart.
Conclusions
While CIFS has NCP beat on writes to large files, NCP has CIFS beat on reads. This matches earlier results. In fact, NCP-on-Linux is better than NCP-on-NetWare enough that the large file reads are now above the 1.00 line. Novell has done a good job getting NCP ported to Linux.
Which protocol to use depends on what you are going to use the server for. For general office file-server usage, NCP is by far the better protocol. For GIS, large DB, or other large media files, CIFS probably is the better choice in those cases. In our case, though, NCP's access patterns fit our usage patterns better.
Summary