On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Vance Lankhaar wrote: > What about adding a value to the printing param? -> "printing = > disabled"
This seems like a good way to do it. Does anyone have any objections if I do so? > Though, I guess it would only have an effect when put in the global > section. > > Vance Lankhaar > > On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 10:19, Richard Sharpe wrote: > > Hi, > > > > In some recent work that I was doing, I detected that Samba uses a large > > number of file descriptors before it even begins to do any useful work for > > clients. The number is something like 27-29. The number is worse if smbd > > is linked against any shared libs. > > > > On a machine serving 1,000 clients, that means something like 27,000 file > > descriptors are in use across the machine, and MAXFILES needs to be > > increased to large values on some machines. > > > > Something like 5-8 are consumed by the printing system, and a couple seem > > to be sockets that the master smbd has open that don't need to exist after > > it has forked a child etc. > > > > In looking at trying to prevent initializing the print system, and thus > > not consuming file descriptors, if you are not using printing (and some > > Samba users are not), I found that there seems to be no single parameter I > > can key this on, at least not in Samba 2.2.x. There is the > > lp_disable_spoolss (disable spoolss) but that appears not to be enough, > > because there is still the old system. > > > > Should we introduce yet another parameter? Should we modify/change the > > disable spoolss to something like disable printing = all | spoolss | > > old-style? > > > > Regards > > ----- > > Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]ns.aus.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org, > > sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com > > > > > > > -- Regards ----- Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]ns.aus.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org, sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com
