[Samba] shares defined using LDAP instead of smb.conf?
Hi, We are using LDAP to authenticate samba users. It works well. I was wondering if it is possible to use LDAP to define samba shares and somehow have samba read the LDAP shares definitions instead of reading smb.conf Is this sort of thing possible? Cheers. Chris. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] sync always, strict sync, cache question
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Jeremy Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 09:51:33AM -0700, Eric Roseme wrote: > >> --- >> >> >> Samba defaults to asynchronous writes. smbd writes to memory buffer, >> then returns to processing. Buffer is flushed to disk later. This is >> the most efficient behavior. >> >> Windows CreateFile API has the FILE_FLAG_WRITE_THROUGH flag, which >> requests synchronous writes. smbd writes to memory buffer, blocks until >> buffer contents are written to disk, which results in poor performance, >> but better data integrity. >> >> When "strict sync = yes" (default = no) Samba honors the >> FILE_FLAG_WRITE_THROUGH flag, and results in synchronous writes when >> called by the CreateFile API. >> >> When "sync always = yes" (default = no) Samba executes all writes >> synchronously. This requires that "strict sync = yes". >> >> StrictSync SyncAlways ff_write_through Sync-Writes >> no no nono >> yes no nono >> yes no yes Yes (slow) >> no yesyes no >> yes yesyes/noyes (very slow) >> >> Eric Roseme > > Great summation Eric, nothing has changed since then so > it's still accurate ! > > Thanks, > >Jeremy. > Thank you both for the professional reply. Unfortunately, you have confirmed my suspicions. :) I think I'll head back to NFS and give it another try. They too on the list are very helpful. Viva GNU! Chris. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] sync always, strict sync, cache question
Hello, I've been using samba to share folders for a number of years now. thankyou very much to the samba team. Now I'm posed with some questions. I have a couple of servers hosting desktops for thinclient users. Until now I have been mounting /home with NFS on these servers. Recently we have upgraded the whole system and have run into write performance issues with the NFS server. time dd if=/dev/zero of=/home/testfile bs=16k count=16384 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 45.0461 seconds, 6.0 MB/s This is much too slow for the gigabit network. We can improve this a lot by exporting /home with the async option (60-70MB/s), but the NFS documentation strongly recommends against using async (opposed to sync) because of possible firesystem corruption if the NFS server crashes. This is a cache issue. After numerous tests we have given up trying to get it working properly. And we've been trying CIFS. Everything works well and write speed is a lot better. time dd if=/dev/zero of=./testfile bs=16k count=16384 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 3.6 seconds, 74.4 MB/s But I am worried about the cache that Samba makes use of. We would like samba to write to disk immediately. We've found these two options for smb.conf sync always = yes strict sync = yes I can't quiet see the difference between the two in my case. If I set 'sync always = yes' _or_ 'strict sync = yes', I can copy files at 70MB/s (similar to NFS using async). If I set both options, file transfer speed drops to about 20MB/s Does that mean that I do need to set both options to ensure the cache is written to disk before the server returns the ok to the client? How could I test this? And now while I'm here ;) , does anyone have any other recommendations for this kind of setup? Thanks, Chris. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
