Ok, I had to fess up my own stupidity. After checking ifconfig, I noticed that there were no RX errors but a ton of TX errors. I forced the card to 100Mb Full duplex and also forced the port on Cisco switch to do the same.
Samba runs like a champ now. Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [Samba] Performance: Samba 3 vs. Windows 2003 > I have been noticing similar results with my server. The Samba machine is > a dual processor Xeon with 1 gig of ram running Fedora Core 1. The NT 4 > machine is a dual PIII 500 machine with 512mb of ram. > > I still have an NT 4 server and a Samba 3 machine that I setup. > > A 25 meg copied from the NT machine takes about 4 seconds. The same file > takes 8 seconds on the Samba 3 machine. > > I had to play with the SO_SNDBUF and SO_RVCBUF. It doesn't like them set > to 8192. 4096 works about as well as it can. > > Doug > > ------------------------------------------ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Systems Support Specialist IV > Georgia Institute of Technology - Savannah > 210 Technology Circle > Savannah, GA 31407 > Phone: 912.966.7956 > Fax: 912.966.7836 > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Paul Gienger wrote: > > > Have you tested a non-samba protocol, FTP perhaps? Many ftp programs > > will give you an estimate of the speed realtime as well, fwiw, although > > they can be a little buggy at times on estimations. > > > > Andrew Gray wrote: > > > > >Here's a couple suggestions that we've played with. > > > > > >- What kernel are you running on your Samba box? We got significantly > > >better performance when we switched to 2.6.5 over 2.4.22. > > >- Do you have debugging turned on in Samba? Or anything other than log > > >level = 0? That can slow things down a fair bit as well. > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Alexander Lazarevich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: "Samba Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 3:30 PM > > >Subject: [Samba] Performance: Samba 3 vs. Windows 2003 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Samba guru's: > > >> > > >>Our Samba 3 network performance is half that of Windows 2003 Server. I > > >>really want to stay with samba/unix, but half the performance? I'm hoping > > >>someone can point me in the right direction so we can keep using > > >>samba/unix. I'll try to give as much detail without giving pages and > > >>pages of benchmark numbers. If someone wants to see numbers, I'll send > > >>them: > > >> > > >>Fileserver is Dell PE2600, Dual Xeon 18GHz, 2GB memory, Gig NIC. System > > >>is dual boot RHEL3-AS with an ext3 filesystem and Windows 2003 Server > > >>with NTFS. The fileserving disk is a SATA-SCSI RAID enclosure. Bonnie++ > > >>and iozone both show that the RAID enclosure can do 80MB/sec writes and > > >>40MB/sec reads on the ext3 in linux. Benchmarks in windows 2003 are very > > >>similar. Why it gets faster writes than read, I don't know, and I don't > > >>care right now. What I'm worried about is our samba network performance. > > >> > > >>Clients are Windows XP/2K/NT4 pro with all patches installed and Gig NICs. > > >>All the clients can netperf to the server at 60+MB/sec, some even faster. > > >>No collisions on the NICs, nothing wrong with the network. There is a > > >>cisco Gig switch inbetween the client and the server as well. > > >> > > >>Here is the bottom line: > > >> > > >>When the server is running samba 3, the clients get 12-13MB/sec. > > >> > > >>When the server is running windows 2003, the clients get 24-26MB/sec. > > >> > > >>Keep in mind the server hardware is exactly the same, the only thing I > > >>change is the software. Windows 2003 beets up Samba 3, hands down. > > >> > > >>However, all this testing is done by just drag and drop, and looking at > > >>the clock to time it. Not the best way to do it, but I don't know of > > >>another way now, suggestions welcome. The difference is obvious and > > >>consistent: 500MB file in samba 3 writes to disk in 42 seconds, but writes > > >>to windows 2003 disk in 21 seconds. I can produce the same results on all > > >>of our clients any time of the day. > > >> > > >>I've tried changing the smb.conf socket options (TCP_NODELAY, SO_SNDBUF, > > >>etc.) to 65523, 242xxx, whatever. /etc/init.d/smb restart, then try again. > > >>No change in performance whatsoever. Still 12-13MB/sec. I've also set > > >>other options in smb.conf, such as xmit, write size, read size, but > > >>nothing seems to change the fact that samba 3 can't do more than > > >>12-13MB/sec. > > >> > > >>I've also searched the list, and found some people had success in > > >>performance issues by changing the SO_SNDBUF, but they didn't list any > > >>benchmark numbers. Maybe they were happy with 12-13MB/sec, but I'm not, > > >>especially if something else can get 25MB/sec. > > >> > > >>Any input is welcome. > > >> > > >>Alex > > >>--- --- > > >> Alex Lazarevich | Systems Administrator | Imaging Technology Group > > >> Beckman Institute | University of Illinois | www.itg.uiuc.edu > > >>--- --- > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>-- > > >>To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > > >>instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Paul Gienger Office: 701-281-1884 > > Applied Engineering Inc. Cell: 701-306-6254 > > Information Systems Consultant Fax: 701-281-1322 > > URL: www.ae-solutions.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > > instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
