On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 09:47:19AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hello... > > Currently in the process of upgrading Samba v2.0.10 to Samba v3.0.x, while > conducting some minimal testing, it turns-out that Samba v3.0.x is > performing slower than Samba v2.0.10. > > Set-ups: > A. Samba v3.0.x --> > Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, > HP DL380) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached > Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380). > > B. Samba v2.0.x --> > Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 (32bit, > Dell T7400) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached > Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380). > > C. Samba v2.0.x --> > Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Solaris8 (Sun V240) > which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached Solaris8 > (Sun V240). > > Trails: > I've tested both Samba versions using the same smb.conf files and have also > tested with all global defaults (except those required). Played around > with Socket Options & Max Xmit sizes but no luck, it's still slower. This > doesn't sound accurate, shouldn't the Samba v3.0.x be faster than Samba > v2.0.10? What config options/settings should I be looking at?
None. Very likely it is the utimes(2) calls that we have to do on each write for correctness. Can you verify that with sniffs? I will have to dig it up, but there is a module somewhere that gets rid of those, sacrificing a bit of compatibility. BTW, exporting an NFS imported directory is a REALLY, REALLY bad idea. Why don't you just install Samba on the NFS server? Volker
pgp5hjJbJ8iNB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
