Hi all,
My main goal for the Pine64 is to run it as simple samba server (Gigabit ethernet, yay).
I'm currently using a Raspberry Pi B+, but 100M is just terrible.
Do you think it's worth the upgrade?
Has anyone done this?
I would like to know abou t stability, speed and ease of setup.
Cheers.
I have both although my Pi is a B2. It is too early to compare the performance of the two as I just built the Pine64+ last night. I believe that Mate desktop includes Samba, but I have not had a chance to test that either.
From an experiential standpoint, Longsleep (and others) have done an amazing job in getting Linux running on Pine, but in my limited experience, Raspberry Pi was easier to setup and configure given the massive community and mature code. However, to your point, those benefits come with a trade-off of an older (and slower) architecture, and does not seem like the LAN bandwidth issue has been addressed with the Pi3.
I would be interested some Pi2 vs Pine64 Samba bandwidth testing and will try to get around to it later this week. I will probably use CrystalDiskMark. Do you have preferred parameters?
All Pi's have only 100M NIC - why do you think it es even remotely comparable to a Pine64+ with 1000M NIC? Compare it with an ODROID C2 or if you want with a ODROID C1.
(05-10-2016, 11:58 AM)jl_678 Wrote: From an experiential standpoint, Longsleep (and others) have done an amazing job in getting Linux running on Pine, but in my limited experience, Raspberry Pi was easier to setup and configure given the massive community and mature code. However, to your point, those benefits come with a trade-off of an older (and slower) architecture, and does not seem like the LAN bandwidth issue has been addressed with the Pi3.
I would be interested some Pi2 vs Pine64 Samba bandwidth testing and will try to get around to it later this week. I will probably use CrystalDiskMark. Do you have preferred parameters?
First off I couldnt disagree more. longsleeps latest ubuntu installs quick easy and clean, just as clean and simple as raspbain on a pi. Even the larger debian install with XFCE put out by lenny installs simply. Image, it boot it, resize it, done. With the lastest kernel from longsleep I finally have hdmi out I can use and wifi that should work for the majority of popular devices out there. Of course your experience is your experience.
The Pi architecture is cheap because of its architecture. Not much point putting Gig-e on a USB backed bus.
As for using CrystalDiskmark to do bandwidth testing? You have seen everything that says the microsd on the Pine is limited to no more than 20-33Mbps? I can push full gigabit over the pines Ethernet with no sweat, getting it data that fast is another matter.
05-10-2016, 01:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2016, 01:15 PM by nomadewolf.)
(05-10-2016, 12:26 PM)longsleep Wrote: All Pi's have only 100M NIC - why do you think it es even remotely comparable to a Pine64+ with 1000M NIC? Compare it with an ODROID C2 or if you want with a ODROID C1.
I want it compared with the Pi precisely to see what the improvement will be and because that will be the deciding factor if i buy the Pine to replace the Pi or not.
And i know that theoretically it's not even remotely comparable, but i also know that the final performance will depend on much more stuff than the actual interface speed (as you might as well know since you provide us a kernel). BUS speed, processor, quality of the drivers, quality of the overall image, maturity of it all, kernel version... the final result may vary quite a bit, given all those variables.
What i want to know is: is it worth it?
(05-10-2016, 11:58 AM)jl_678 Wrote: I have both although my Pi is a B2. It is too early to compare the performance of the two as I just built the Pine64+ last night. I believe that Mate desktop includes Samba, but I have not had a chance to test that either.
From an experiential standpoint, Longsleep (and others) have done an amazing job in getting Linux running on Pine, but in my limited experience, Raspberry Pi was easier to setup and configure given the massive community and mature code. However, to your point, those benefits come with a trade-off of an older (and slower) architecture, and does not seem like the LAN bandwidth issue has been addressed with the Pi3.
I would be interested some Pi2 vs Pine64 Samba bandwidth testing and will try to get around to it later this week. I will probably use CrystalDiskMark. Do you have preferred parameters?
I don't really know 
Just want to know what's the Pine capable of in that department.
(05-10-2016, 12:51 PM)rahlquist Wrote: (05-10-2016, 11:58 AM)jl_678 Wrote: From an experiential standpoint, Longsleep (and others) have done an amazing job in getting Linux running on Pine, but in my limited experience, Raspberry Pi was easier to setup and configure given the massive community and mature code. However, to your point, those benefits come with a trade-off of an older (and slower) architecture, and does not seem like the LAN bandwidth issue has been addressed with the Pi3.
I would be interested some Pi2 vs Pine64 Samba bandwidth testing and will try to get around to it later this week. I will probably use CrystalDiskMark. Do you have preferred parameters?
First off I couldnt disagree more. longsleeps latest ubuntu installs quick easy and clean, just as clean and simple as raspbain on a pi. Even the larger debian install with XFCE put out by lenny installs simply. Image, it boot it, resize it, done. With the lastest kernel from longsleep I finally have hdmi out I can use and wifi that should work for the majority of popular devices out there. Of course your experience is your experience.
The Pi architecture is cheap because of its architecture. Not much point putting Gig-e on a USB backed bus.
As for using CrystalDiskmark to do bandwidth testing? You have seen everything that says the microsd on the Pine is limited to no more than 20-33Mbps? I can push full gigabit over the pines Ethernet with no sweat, getting it data that fast is another matter.
You went straight to my concerns. Having Gigabit is one thing, but what it can do with it is what i'm interested in.
In my case, serving USB2.0 hard drives.
No clue about samba, but here is what i get on Pine64+ 2GB with my Ubuntu Xenial image unmodified no extra tweaks:
Code: Sender (ODROIC C1+)
~$ pv a.out | nc pine64 1234
800MB 0:01:12 [11.1MB/s] [==================================>] 100%
Receiver(PINE64)
~$ nc -l -p 1234 >/mnt/temp/out.file
/mnt is mounted on a very cheap USB 2.0 thumb drive with vfat and default mount options. Everyone who knows about these things will notice that i did let disk caching kick in (intentional). For my USB thumb drive performance 4.5 times lower without cache an 1M block size. So whatever samba is doing, the result is probably somewhere in the middle 
(05-10-2016, 02:20 PM)longsleep Wrote: No clue about samba, but here is what i get on Pine64+ 2GB with my Ubuntu Xenial image unmodified no extra tweaks:
Code: Sender (ODROIC C1+)
~$ pv a.out | nc pine64 1234
800MB 0:01:12 [11.1MB/s] [==================================>] 100%
Receiver(PINE64)
~$ nc -l -p 1234 >/mnt/temp/out.file
/mnt is mounted on a very cheap USB 2.0 thumb drive with vfat and default mount options. Everyone who knows about these things will notice that i did let disk caching kick in (intentional). For my USB thumb drive performance 4.5 times lower without cache an 1M block size. So whatever samba is doing, the result is probably somewhere in the middle
Interesting results.
I was honestly expecting more. I can get almost 5Mb/s with my Pi and if i plug in a Gigabit USB adapter im sure it can about double.
What might be the bottleneck there? I hope it's the thumb drive...
Have you got any external hdd which you can do the same test with?
05-10-2016, 11:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2016, 11:25 PM by longsleep.)
Well, there are lots of bottle necks for sure. As i said, this is unoptimized and the speed everyone can reach.
This is writing to /tmp (which is on RAM, thus no USB and disk speed involved - essentially the maximum possible)
Code: pv a.out | nc pine64 1234
800MB 0:00:51 [15.4MB/s] [==================================>] 100%
05-10-2016, 11:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-11-2016, 12:38 AM by tkaiser.)
(05-10-2016, 04:39 PM)nomadewolf Wrote: What might be the bottleneck there?
Do you really believe Pine64 is the first ARM based SBC on this planet? Or that the tons of information already available might apply to Pine64 too?
Pine64 is a bad choice to be used as NAS or Samba server due to low I/O bandwidth. But you should be able to reach and even slightly exceed 30 MB/s with BSP kernel. That's what you get with USB2.0 disks on every A20 device (for example a Banana Pi) if you adjusted settings accordingly. As a starting point:
http://linux-sunxi.org/Sunxi_devices_as_...ottlenecks
Quote:Do you really believe Pine64 is the first ARM based SBC on this planet?
Of course not. If you read the whole thread, you can see that i mention i have a Pi B+
Quote:Or that the tons of information already available might apply to Pine64 too?
The basic theory, i already know.
What i'm here to find out are the real capabilities of this board.
Quote:Pine64 is a bad choice to be used as NAS or Samba server due to low I/O bandwidth. But you should be able to reach and even slightly exceed 30 MB/s with BSP kernel. That's what you get with USB2.0 disks on every A20 device
I know that it is a bad choice, but it's also way cheaper!
If it covers my needs, does it really matter? I just want my USB devices accessible via network shares at decent speed.
30 MB/s would be sweet, but as you can see longsleep got only 11MB/s with 'wrong' testing method that increased the result...
Quote:http://linux-sunxi.org/Sunxi_devices_as_...ottlenecks
Thanks for the link. Usefull stuff about testing methods/tools.
|
