Juan Pablo wrote:
Thanks a lot for the advice. It will run these tests and try to find meaningfull
information from them. I will post back results.
Thanks
Juan Pablo
What type of speeds are you expecting?
With a GB network, your limit is 125MB/s. I get that
with
Alan Hodgson wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:02:56PM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote:
- 4 Intel Gigagit ethernet NIC ports with 802.3ad bonding connected to a
switch configured tu use 802.3ad
- 8 2TB 7.2 krpm SATA disks with hardware RAID5 (RAID stripe size 1024
bytes, controller and disk cache
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 06:46:51PM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote:
Hi Volker,
I've removed the SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536 and the 3 other setting,
reloaded samba and repeated the tests but still getting the same results for
the
local tests and also from Windows.
I am getting the
On 5/25/2011 10:02 PM, Juan Pablo wrote:
OS access:
Simultaneous read (4 processes): 118 MByte/s average
Samba local access:
Simultaneous read (4 processes): 102 MByte/s average
Samba server from Windows 7:
Simultaneous read (4 terminals): 70 MByte/s average
The first two
...@samba.org; samba@lists.samba.org
Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 3:49:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 06:46:51PM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote:
Hi Volker,
I've removed the SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536 and the 3 other setting,
reloaded samba and repeated the tests
, 2011 8:50:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance
On 5/25/2011 10:02 PM, Juan Pablo wrote:
OS access:
Simultaneous read (4 processes): 118 MByte/s average
Samba local access:
Simultaneous read (4 processes): 102 MByte/s average
Samba server from Windows 7:
Simultaneous read (4
On 6/2/2011 2:24 PM, Juan Pablo wrote:
Hi Stan,
Thanks for your feedback and suggestions!
You're welcome. Let's hope they're beneficial.
The disk subsystem is composed by:
- 8 WD2002FAEX SATA 2TB hard drives (7200 RPM, 64MB cache, 4.2 ms avg latency)
- 1 Intel RAID controller RS2BL080
Sent: Fri, May 27, 2011 11:25:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 06:34:50AM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote:
Hi Volker,
I am using the following socket options:
socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536
Just remove the SO_RCVBUF
Lendecke volker.lende...@sernet.de
To: Juan Pablo jhur...@yahoo.com
Cc: Jeremy Allison j...@samba.org; samba@lists.samba.org
Sent: Thu, May 26, 2011 2:27:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:14:31AM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for your reply
: Daniel Deptuła daniel.dept...@gmail.com
To: samba@lists.samba.org
Cc: jhur...@yahoo.com
Sent: Thu, May 26, 2011 1:19:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance
W dniu 2011-05-26 05:02, Juan Pablo pisze:
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to use samba in a small video post production house but we
...@simkin.ca
To: samba@lists.samba.org
Sent: Thu, May 26, 2011 2:45:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:02:56PM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote:
- 4 Intel Gigagit ethernet NIC ports with 802.3ad bonding connected to a
switch configured tu use 802.3ad
- 8 2TB 7.2
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 06:34:50AM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote:
Hi Volker,
I am using the following socket options:
socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536
Just remove the SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536 settings.
Unless you're on a very old Linux or other
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:02:56PM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to use samba in a small video post production house but we are not
getting the performance we expected.
Our setup:
- CenOS 5.6 x86-64
- samba.x86_64 (3.0.33-3.29.el5_6.2 and 3.6.0rc1)
- Intel based
W dniu 2011-05-26 05:02, Juan Pablo pisze:
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to use samba in a small video post production house but we are not
getting the performance we expected.
Our setup:
- CenOS 5.6 x86-64
- samba.x86_64 (3.0.33-3.29.el5_6.2 and 3.6.0rc1)
- Intel based server (One 4 core Xeon
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:16:02AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
If you're using 3.6.0 and Windows 7 clients try turning on SMB2 support
by setting max protocol = smb2 in the [global] section of your smb.conf.
Well, using smbclient should definitely get better
performance. Something is wrong
@lists.samba.org
Sent: Thu, May 26, 2011 1:16:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:02:56PM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to use samba in a small video post production house but we are not
getting the performance we expected.
Our setup
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:14:31AM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for your reply!
The tests we did with the Windows 7 terminals was using smb2.
When we enabled smb2 in samba we saw in samba logs that it
was not being used. We modified Windows 7 registry as
described in
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:02:56PM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote:
- 4 Intel Gigagit ethernet NIC ports with 802.3ad bonding connected to a
switch configured tu use 802.3ad
- 8 2TB 7.2 krpm SATA disks with hardware RAID5 (RAID stripe size 1024
bytes, controller and disk cache enabled, readahead
I have question about samba performance with multi-thread and multi core
cpu.
What can we do for samba performance with multi-thread and multi core ?
Each connected user gets their own process and thus threads. The
system will balance the threads over the cpus.
John
--
To unsubscribe from
let me know what you find.
Thank you
Ales
Původní zpráva
Od: Fabien azertyz...@free.fr
Předmět: Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue
Datum: 11.1.2009 00:29:18
Hello,
as you say, I also think it would be nice to mention the issue
Steven to fix the cifs kernel
module ;-)
Původní zpráva
Od: Volker Lendecke volker.lende...@sernet.de
Předmět: Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue
Datum: 05.1.2009 21:42:42
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 08:25:34PM +0100, Fabien wrote
over and over again. Might even force Steven to fix the cifs kernel
module ;-)
Původní zpráva
Od: Volker Lendecke volker.lende...@sernet.de
Předmět: Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue
Datum: 05.1.2009 21:42:42
On Mon, Jan 05
Thanks for the information.
Do you know why the smbclient, although faster, is not fast enough to go
over 80Mo/s ?
Is there any plan to do the fiddly work on the smbfs implementation to
make it as fast as smbclient ? :)
I didn't try the fuse implemtations yet. I found two : SMB for Fuse
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Fabien wrote:
Thanks for the information.
Do you know why the smbclient, although faster, is not fast enough to go
over 80Mo/s ?
No, not from the top of my head. This needs much closer
investigation.
Volker
pgpCbC6MT7n10.pgp
Description: PGP
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Fabien wrote:
Thanks for the information.
Do you know why the smbclient, although faster, is not fast enough to go
over 80Mo/s ?
Is there any plan to do the fiddly work on the smbfs implementation to
make it as fast as smbclient ? :)
smbfs is
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:27 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Fabien wrote:
Thanks for the information.
Do you know why the smbclient, although faster, is not fast enough to go
over 80Mo/s ?
Is there any plan to do the fiddly work on the smbfs
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 09:24:16AM -0800, rhubbell wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:27 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Fabien wrote:
Thanks for the information.
Do you know why the smbclient, although faster, is not fast enough to go
over
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 21:47 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 08:25:34PM +0100, Fabien wrote:
I've seen I'm not the only one impacted with this issue these times on
the mailing list :)
I did the following test (Debian packages) :
Server Client : samba 3.2.5
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 09:35:39AM -0800, rhubbell wrote:
Why do cifs and smbfs not have this capability? Is it too much work? Is
it due to differences in the purpose of each?
It's fiddly work nobody has done yet.
Is there a way to setup smbclient to act like a mount point acts? I'm
pretty
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 19:20 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 09:35:39AM -0800, rhubbell wrote:
Why do cifs and smbfs not have this capability? Is it too much work? Is
it due to differences in the purpose of each?
It's fiddly work nobody has done yet.
fiddly = not
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:41:55AM -0800, rhubbell wrote:
Why do cifs and smbfs not have this capability? Is it too much work? Is
it due to differences in the purpose of each?
It's fiddly work nobody has done yet.
fiddly = not hard work, but tedious and sort of annoying?
Fiddly as
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 20:25 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:41:55AM -0800, rhubbell wrote:
Why do cifs and smbfs not have this capability? Is it too much work? Is
it due to differences in the purpose of each?
It's fiddly work nobody has done yet.
Is there a way to setup smbclient to act like a mount point acts? I'm
pretty sure the answer's No. but I ask anyway.
What do you mean by that? You want to slow down smbclient?
Ha, lol, no. My question was probably ridiculous beyond comprehension.
Was asking if there was a way to
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 11:45:33AM -0800, wes wrote:
Ha, lol, no. My question was probably ridiculous beyond comprehension.
Was asking if there was a way to make use of
smbclient to replace cifs or smbfs.
I would also like to know the answer to this. Can I use smbclient to create
a
Hallo, wes,
Du (samba) meintest am 06.01.09:
Can I use smbclient to
create a mount point on the unix filesystem the way I can with
mount.cifs?
That's the job of mkdir. No other program.
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
Hello,
I've seen I'm not the only one impacted with this issue these times on
the mailing list :)
I did the following test (Debian packages) :
Server Client : samba 3.2.5
mount -t smbfs : ~35Mo/s
mount -t cifs : ~35Mo/s
smbclient : ~80Mo/s
Server Client : samba 3.0.24
mount -t smbfs :
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 08:25:34PM +0100, Fabien wrote:
I've seen I'm not the only one impacted with this issue these times on
the mailing list :)
I did the following test (Debian packages) :
Server Client : samba 3.2.5
mount -t smbfs : ~35Mo/s
mount -t cifs : ~35Mo/s
smbclient :
I'm gonna try that and post the results here as soon as possible.
Do you think it could really make a difference knowing that I also tried
the WindowsXP native client without being able to notice any difference ?
I must also say that I used cifs for my tests (mount -t cifs).
Thanks again,
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 05:54:11PM +0100, Aleš Bláha wrote:
Both computers run Gentoo Linux 2008, kernel 2.6.25-r9,
server runs Samba 3.0.33, client mount.cifs 3.0.30. The
underlying filesystem for Samba is Ext3 with xattr and
acls. I wasn't able to break 32MB/s (250Mbps) transfer
speed
Hi Volker,
Thank you for your help. I will try what you propose as soon as I get
to the machines. But, to be honest, I don't think, the hardware is the
bottleneck. The RAID controller and the NIC in the server sit on a
different PCI bus and each one has its interrupt hooked to a
different CPU.
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:57:34PM +0100, Aleš Bláha wrote:
Thank you for your help. I will try what you propose as soon as I get
to the machines. But, to be honest, I don't think, the hardware is the
bottleneck. The RAID controller and the NIC in the server sit on a
different PCI bus and each
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 22:01:49 +0100 (CET)
Volker Lendecke volker.lende...@sernet.de wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:57:34PM +0100, Aleš Bláha wrote:
Thank you for your help. I will try what you propose as soon as I get
to the machines. But, to be honest, I don't think, the hardware is the
On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 07:35:06PM +0100, Fabien wrote:
* My server config :
- AMD X2 4200+
- 2 Go RAM
- 4 x 500 Go -- RAID5
- Gigabyte connection
- Debian ETCH
- debian package : Samba 3.0.24 (I also tried to backport the testing
version = 3.2.5 but the results were
have you ruled out a networking problem? (i.e. Switch didn't auto-neg to the
same speed/duplex settings as the server)?
Tony Hoover, Network Administrator
KSU - Salina, College of Technology and Aviation
(785) 826-2660
Thanks for attention
But there is no networking related issue, the server is perfectly
accessible for ftp server. Also there is no RTO for ping to samba server.
The only new thing that i done is configured DNS slave server on that.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Hoover, Tony [EMAIL
I wonder if tshark or netstat could be useful here?
Andrew
---
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
g] On Behalf Of Daniel L. Miller
Sent: 09 October 2007 00:47
To: samba@lists.samba.org
Subject: [Samba] Samba performance tuning
On 10/9/07, Daniel L. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Sherlock-CF wrote:
I wonder if tshark or netstat could be useful here
I don't know the tools, which is why I was asking.
I do not think either tool will benchmark samba file serving
performance but the actual goal of what a samba
Andrew Sherlock-CF wrote:
I wonder if tshark or netstat could be useful here
I don't know the tools, which is why I was asking.
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Scott Feldstein wrote:
I am attempting to write a monitor to gather Samba Server performance metrics.
I would like to get raw metrics directly from the server itself rather than a
3rd party tool. Could anyone point me to docs or enlighten me on how to
accomplish this?
I have found this, which looks like it could be interesting -
http://samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/install.html
(search for perfmon in the page)
It seems like this dir should have perf counters, but I don't see
them in my running instance. Anyone know about this?
On my
Hello Volker,
The use of cifsfs increase the read performance from a samba share to a
local disk to 30MByte/sec . But the write performace is still 16MByte/sec.
Do you have any other ideas?
Andrea
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Andrea Lorenz wrote:
Did you try cifsfs? smbfs is
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:40:41PM +0100, Andrea Lorenz wrote:
The use of cifsfs increase the read performance from a samba share to a
local disk to 30MByte/sec . But the write performace is still 16MByte/sec.
Do you have any other ideas?
None except to talk to Steve French :-)
Volker
Did you restart the samba service after changing the socket options?
Performance will also be dependent on the hardware configuration of
the clients/servers. It has been pointed out that with the latest
Linux 2.6 kernels, you need not specify SO_SNDBUF and SO_RCVBUF. Were
you measuring the READ
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 09:47:17AM +0100, Andrea Lorenz wrote:
If I use CIFS between the linux client(smbmount) or windows client and
the samba server I get only 16MByte/sec.
Did you try cifsfs? smbfs is deprecated and orphaned.
Volker
pgp7hFADf7NwI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
To
Did you restart the samba service after changing the socket options?
Yes, of course I have restarted the samba server after changes in the
configuration.
Performance will also be dependent on the hardware configuration of
the clients/servers.
It has been pointed out that with the latest
Did you try cifsfs? smbfs is deprecated and orphaned.
If I use mount.cifs I get an error because we use ntlmv2.
We use SC Linux 4.4 with kernel 2.6.9-42.0.3.ELsmp.
Andrea
mount -t cifs -o username=ae106lo,sec=ntlmv2 //guestc1/export1 /mnt_cifs
Password:
mount error 13 = Permission denied
--
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Andrea Lorenz wrote:
Did you try cifsfs? smbfs is deprecated and orphaned.
If I use mount.cifs I get an error because we use ntlmv2.
We use SC Linux 4.4 with kernel 2.6.9-42.0.3.ELsmp.
Andrea
mount -t cifs -o username=ae106lo,sec=ntlmv2
Hello,
thank you for your help and here is a small summary:
It turned out, that customer application does a wildcard search wcard =
c55crvtu.m1. In windows the kernel does directory filtering. In POSIX,
any wildcard filtering is done in userspace - which means as soon as a
wildcard is received,
On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 10:42:03AM +0200, Tomas Baublys wrote:
Hello,
I have a samba server on OpenPower (SUSE SLES9) and a DS4300 storage
attached.There is a lot of data (8 TB mp3 files). Some directories
contains more then 250.000 files. The application is a music playbox in a
huge CD
Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 24.06.2005 20:32:19:
This may be a filesystem problem - looks like you've got the parameters
correct. Any chance you can test this on a different filesystem than
reiser ? Maybe XFS ?
Jeremy.
I tried XFS, the results are exactly the same. I see
On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 09:04:57PM +0200, Tomas Baublys wrote:
Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 24.06.2005 20:32:19:
This may be a filesystem problem - looks like you've got the parameters
correct. Any chance you can test this on a different filesystem than
reiser ? Maybe XFS ?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 07:25:39PM +0100, Martin Wilson wrote:
I am involved in the support of a digital audio editing and production system
involving Windows 2k clients storing the audio assets on an AIX backend. The
problem we have been experiencing is that we open audio files in the editor
El Miércoles, 24 de Noviembre de 2004 11:30, escribió:
Are you sure it is samba who is causing delays and not the file system?
No, you are right. I will try to change the file system from EXT3 to REISER.
What file system are you using? Is the second access to a file as slow as
the first?
No,
Isaac Ojeda Llebry wrote:
We're running samba in our organization to serve files in a LAN to windows
machines (almost XP), and we're having some performance issues with small
files. With big files (ie, ISO images), it works pretty well. But, when small
files are involved in the transference,
Hi Xiaoqin,
First, if TCP_NODELAY is not being set, that could be your performance
problem right there. I have no idea what the problem is with setting
your socket options. I guess that you compile your own Samba version,
so maybe it's time to start investigating your build.
My version of HP
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:01:05PM -0400, Marcello Melfi wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
I have added the parameters
case sensitive = yes
preserve case = no
short preserve case = no
default case = lower
to the smb.conf file and everything seems ok now, as far as performance
Melfi
Cc: 'Jeremy Allison'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance/stability issue...
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:06:28PM -0400, Marcello Melfi wrote:
Regardless of the above, why is it that sometimes I get very good
results and many other times bad ones? I would expect
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:01:05PM -0400, Marcello Melfi wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
I have added the parameters
case sensitive = yes
preserve case = no
short preserve case = no
default case = lower
to the smb.conf file and everything seems ok now, as far as performance
3.0.2a on a Solaris 8 system.
Bye,
Marcello
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: July 15, 2004 21:06
To: Marcello Melfi
Cc: 'Jeremy Allison'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance/stability issue...
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:01:05PM
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:43:02PM -0400, Marcello Melfi wrote:
I am performing some benchmarks that will reflect the way I am going to use
Samba. Basically, I am copying/creating, via a simple C++ program running on
the client box, the same 50 K-Bytes file about 10,000 times on the Samba
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: July 13, 2004 21:50
To: Marcello Melfi
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance/stability issue...
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:43:02PM -0400, Marcello Melfi wrote:
I am performing some benchmarks that will reflect the way I am going
to use
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:06:28PM -0400, Marcello Melfi wrote:
Regardless of the above, why is it that sometimes I get very good results
and many other times bad ones? I would expect that this case-insensitive
thing be consistent and therefore always generates bad results. Do you have
an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
The contents of this email are intended exclusively for the
addressee. If you are not the addressee you must not read
use or disclose the email contents ; you should notify us
immediately [ by
We too
are using Samba as a File Server on our mainframe. We have experienced
slowness, but I don't know that it's attributed to Samba (atleast in our
case). One thing I do know is I took the same data, using the same version
of Samba (2.2.7) and installed it on an Intel PIII. The PIII
Samba wrote:
We too are using Samba as a File Server on our mainframe. We have
experienced slowness, but I don't know that it's attributed to Samba
(atleast in our case). One thing I do know is I took the same data,
using the same version of Samba (2.2.7) and installed it on an Intel
PIII.
hi,
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 02:20:49PM +0100, Dragan Krnic wrote:
ext2/ext3 manipulate the directory entries using lists
so if you have a great many files in one directory you
will see performance issues as you describe. The answer
to this is to change filesystem - no mean feat with
by: Subject: RE: [Samba] Samba Performance
question
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
org
You made my day, Guenther. I believed what they posted on bestbits
that they are still looking for someone to patch Reiser. Have you
actually tried it and it worked?
--
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:56:31
Guenther Deschner wrote:
hi,
Such a shame ReiserFS has no ACLs.
By far the best for such
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 04:13 AM, Noel Kelly wrote:
Someone else might well know better but
I believe this is a file system issue. ext2/ext3 manipulate the directory entries using lists so if you have a great many files in one directory you will see performance issues as you
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002
17:29
To: Noel Kelly
Cc: Belgardt, Wolfgang;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba
Performance question
On Friday,
December 6, 2002, at 04:13 AM, Noel Kelly wrote:
Someone
else might well know better but
I
believe
: [Samba] Samba Performance question
We had the same problem here and I traced it to how Samba pretends to be a
Windows server.
Basically Samba does this:
1) build an in-memory list of a directory's contents, with 8.3 mangled
names
2) When asked for a file, look through the list created in step 1
Try an
ifconfig and see if you are getting errors on the NIC first.
Noel
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 28 October 2002
12:38To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Samba] Samba
PerformanceAny ideas
where i can get a "things to check"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any ideas where i can get a things to check list for performace
tuning of Samba
Currently copying 300mb of data since 09:00am this morning and still
going ...now 12:20!
100mb full duplex nic on a IBM x232 series dual proc Piii-1.2ghz,
512mb ram, raid 5 - 18.2gb
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Vinay Kudithipudi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba - Performance Issues
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 12:57:17PM -0500, Vinay Kudithipudi wrote:
Hello Guys,
I am having some problems
how are u measuring read and write speeds?
-Original Message-
From: Vinay Kudithipudi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Samba] Samba - Performance Issues
Hello Guys,
I am having some problems with configuring SAMBA
Technologies Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Javid Abdul-AJAVID1 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:13 PM
To: 'Vinay Kudithipudi'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Samba] Samba - Performance Issues
how are u measuring read and write speeds?
-Original
so are you using xcopy or copy dos command in your script?
-Original Message-
From: Vinay Kudithipudi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:21 PM
To: 'Javid Abdul-AJAVID1'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Samba] Samba - Performance Issues
Javid,
I am running
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 12:57:17PM -0500, Vinay Kudithipudi wrote:
Hello Guys,
I am having some problems with configuring SAMBA with regards to
performance. We are running SAMBA 2.2.3a on Dual PIII 1Ghz machines with
512MB of RAM. The server is running on a default server installation of
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 12:57:17PM -0500, Vinay Kudithipudi wrote:
===SMB.CONF===
[global]
workgroup = MYGROUP
netbios name = {HOSTNAME}
wins server = {WINSSERVER}
server string = {HOSTNAME}
security = SHARE
encrypt passwords = Yes
log file =
be the cause here.
Vinay Kudithipudi
Associate Network Operations Engineer
Spirian Technologies Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Jay Ts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:50 PM
To: Vinay Kudithipudi
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba - Performance Issues
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 05:50:49PM -0500, Vinay Kudithipudi wrote:
Jay - I tried the test without any options (i.e. all default) and still get
the same results
Javid - I am using copy
Jeremy - All clients are Win2k or WinXP.
I would very much like to blame the hardware for the problem,
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 15:57, John Coston wrote:
12:46pm up 2 days, 17:14, 3 users, load average: 20.24, 20.26, 20.51
129 processes: 106 sleeping, 23 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 36.1% user, 63.8% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% idle
Mem: 3229040K av, 3166372K used, 62668K free,
it's software RAID-1 using two fast wide scsi 36 gb discs. Filesystem
is ext3. We have one 30gb partition for share data, and the rest is for
system and swap.
here is some of output from dmesg:
md: md driver 0.90.0 MAX_MD_DEVS=256, MD_SB_DISKS=27
md: Autodetecting RAID arrays.
...
scsi0 :
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, John Coston wrote:
it's software RAID-1 using two fast wide scsi 36 gb discs. Filesystem
is ext3. We have one 30gb partition for share data, and the rest is for
system and swap.
here is some of output from dmesg:
md: md driver 0.90.0 MAX_MD_DEVS=256, MD_SB_DISKS=27
here is the output of vmstat, iostat, and uname:
[root@foo root]# vmstat 1
procs memoryswap io system
cpu
r b w swpd free buff cache si sobibo incs us
sy id
21 0 1 0 61384 148780 2763956 0 0 2
sorry - the last iostat result is from another execution of the command
(without the 1), not from the looping output.
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 02:22 PM, John Coston wrote:
here is the output of vmstat, iostat, and uname:
[root@foo root]# vmstat 1
procs
Sorry for the confusion - if I run iostat I get this:
[root@foo root]# iostat
Linux 2.4.18-3 (foo) 09/24/2002
avg-cpu: %user %nice%sys %idle
16.790.00 26.39 56.82
Device:tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
dev8-0 11.80
On 24 Sep 2002, Bradley W. Langhorst wrote:
probably you want to run the iostat 1 during heavier load...
however the summary result does look funny to me...
On my system we have ~ 1:1 ratio of reads to writes
you have a ~ 1:200 ratio of reads to writes.
Does that make sense in your
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 18:19, John Coston wrote:
some output from ps wauxf:
for smbd, all the processes are around this value:
parky 1963 3.5 0.1 7488 3452 ?R07:37 15:41 \_ smbd
-D
for ldap, all of the processes are around this value:
ldap 6150 0.0 0.1 75548
Hi,
I'm rather interested in the outcome of this on or off the list; but I
suspect there will be other people on the list who are interested -
please keep posting to the list :-)
I think we have very similar HW. We have a dual CPU (1.4G PIII) LPr2000
netserver with 10k and 15k drives. We
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
