[Samba] Slow performance with cifs client
Hi all. I have a problem with the cifs module in my gigabit network. I get the following performance: 95 mbytes/s with FTP 65 mbytes/s with samba, windows 7 client 8 mbytes/ with the cifs module on opensuse 11.4 I have tried all the solutions found on google, such as directio, modifying rsize and wsize, with no improvements. Any advice? Is this the right place to discuss issues with cifs? P -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
[Samba] Slow performance to samba server with OSX client
Dear List, I'm hoping there is someone that might give me some pointers to solving the following problem. I run Mac OSX Tiger and perform a filecopy using Finder to a samba share on a Gentoo Linux machine running samba version 3.0.14a. Copying a 1GB file to the fileserver takes roughly 2 hours (33,9 MB in 4 min). This means 142 kb/s over a Gigabit network. Now here is the strange thing: When I log into the Gentoo box using SSH, during the filetransfer and run tcpdump (dumping output through the terminal) the transfer speed shoots up and the copying takes less than one minute. 700MB in 30 seconds, or 23 MB/s. I included a small piece of the tcpdump in the hope it helps. When I stop the tcpdump or route it to /dev/null the speed drops. Whenever there is a process that constantly pushes information to the ssh terminal the speed picks up again. The Gentoo machine uses a realtek Gigabit nic (dmesg: r8169 Gigabit Ethernet driver 1.2 loaded). The switch is also Gigabit as well as the iMac (intel). The cable is correctly and completely wired. 1. the fileserver samba version is 3.0.14a 2. the samba configuration is vanilla (with one share added) 3. the realtek nic is in full duplex mode (see ethtool dump) 4. the imac samba version is 3.0.10 5. performance using scp is acceptable (11.5 MB/s) 6. setting the delayed_ack on the iMac to 0 makes hardly any difference (still 2 hours) Tweaking the samba config helps a little, but nowhere near the 23MB/s I get when running tcpdump. I also thought it might have something to do with lookups dns or lmhost or something, but that doesn't explain this. I'm lost. Cheers, Pim - delayed ack - sudo sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0 --- SCP COPY VTS_01_2.VOB 20% 206MB 11.5MB/s 01:11 ETA - SMB CONF --- Vanilla (from smb.conf.example) + [music] comment = Music path = /mnt/music public = yes writable = yes browseable = yes guest ok = yes - ETHTOOL - fileserver everything # ethtool eth1 Settings for eth1: Supported ports: [ TP ] Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full 1000baseT/Full Supports auto-negotiation: Yes Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full 1000baseT/Full Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes Speed: 1000Mb/s Duplex: Full Port: Twisted Pair PHYAD: 0 Transceiver: internal Auto-negotiation: on Link detected: yes TCP DUMP 22:49:55.710260 IP 192.168.10.15.49392 192.168.10.12.139: . 86804678:86806126(1448) ack 76433 win 65535 nop,nop,timestamp 232463412 17073752 NBT Packet 22:49:55.711544 IP 192.168.10.12.139 192.168.10.15.49392: . ack 86866186 win 17965 nop,nop,timestamp 17073755 232463412 22:49:55.712439 IP 192.168.10.12.22 192.168.10.15.49296: P 12769520:12769712(192) ack 14593 win 2056 nop,nop,timestamp 17073755 232463412 22:49:55.712567 IP 192.168.10.15.49392 192.168.10.12.139: . 86866186:86867634(1448) ack 76484 win 65535 nop,nop,timestamp 232463412 17073755 NBT Packet 22:49:55.714724 IP 192.168.10.12.22 192.168.10.15.49296: P 12769904:12770096(192) ack 14593 win 2056 nop,nop,timestamp 17073758 232463412 22:49:55.714787 IP 192.168.10.15.49392 192.168.10.12.139: . 86927694:86929142(1448) ack 76535 win 65535 nop,nop,timestamp 232463412 17073757 NBT Packet 22:49:55.716477 IP 192.168.10.12.22 192.168.10.15.49296: P 12770448:12770640(192) ack 14593 win 2056 nop,nop,timestamp 17073759 232463412 22:49:55.716605 IP 192.168.10.12.22 192.168.10.15.49296: P 12770640:12770832(192) ack 14593 win 2056 nop,nop,timestamp 17073760 232463412 22:49:55.716820 IP 192.168.10.12.22 192.168.10.15.49296: P 12770992:12771184(192) ack 14593 win 2056 nop,nop,timestamp 17073760 232463412 22:49:55.716936 IP 192.168.10.12.22 192.168.10.15.49296: P 12771184:12771376(192) ack 14593 win 2056 nop,nop,timestamp 17073760 232463412 22:49:55.717046 IP 192.168.10.12.22 192.168.10.15.49296: P 12771376:12771568(192) ack 14593 win 2056 nop,nop,timestamp 17073760 232463412 22:49:55.717161 IP 192.168.10.12.22 192.168.10.15.49296: P 12771568:12771760(192) ack 14593 win 2056 nop,nop,timestamp 17073760 232463412 22:49:55.717271 IP 192.168.10.12.22 192.168.10.15.49296: P 12771760:12771952(192) ack 14593 win 2056 nop,nop,timestamp 17073760 232463412 22:49:55.717382 IP 192.168.10.12.22 192.168.10.15.49296: P 12771952:12772144(192) ack 14593 win 2056 nop,nop,timestamp 17073760 232463412 22:49:55.717492 IP 192.168.10.12.22 192.168.10.15.49296: P 12772144:12772336(192) ack 14593 win 2056 nop,nop,timestamp 17073760 232463412 22:49:55.717619 IP 192.168.10.12.22
[Samba] Slow performance
I noticed that viewing and writing of files from my Windows 2003 server to my Samba Linux server is really slow. I can see that it's freezing up for a couple of seconds sometimes. How do I go about troubleshooting this problem to figure out where the bottleneck is? It just seems so strange because there's not much traffic on the network and both servers are idle usually (test servers). -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] slow performance samba 2.2.7 with windows explorer on Win2000 or Win NT4
Hello, I notice that when I copy a small directory (150 kb) to a samba share drive on Windows 2000, the performance is very slow. This is also the case when using windows explorer on NT4. The samba share is made on a Sun solaris 2.8 system and samba 2.2.7 is used. Copying the same directoy with windows explorer (on the same pc !) to an samba share made on Sun Solaris 2.6 system, running samba 2.0.2 is much faster. There are no network traffic problems. The same test I did on a DOS prompt. The result of this test was the same for both Sun solaris systems. So I think there is a problem with Win2000 explorer and Samba 2.2.7. Do you have any idea what can be the reason? met vriendelijke groeten / regards , Kurt De Kesel _ Bayer BioScience N.V. Information Technology Nazarethse steenweg 77 B-9800 Astene (Deinze) Belgium Tel: +32 (0)9 381 84 54 Fax:+32 (0)9 380 16 62 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Samba slow performance when switch from USER=SHARE toUSER=DOMAIN on WinXP clients
Dear List: I have a network (about 30 PCs) that was working fine using USER=SHARE. Last weekend we switched over to take advantage of a Win2K server (recently added to the network) to be used as a PDC, Active Directory, etc. The network clients are a mix of WinXP, Win2K-SP3, and WinNT-SP5. After the switch, the WinXP clients started experiencing a severe slowdown after a short period of time. The time before the symptoms occur varies from a couple of minutes to maybe an hour. If they reboot, the performance is again normal. The slowness symptoms are exhibited as random, major delays in opening a Word doc or Excel spreadsheet, navigating with Explorer, etc. The application will open at normal speed, the document loads, but then the hour glass cursor will stay present for up to 20 or 30 seconds before control is returned to the user. Misc Info: Running Samba 2.2.8 on Sun Ultra 2 server with Solaris 7. Running ftp to retrieve files from the server show performance above 9MB/sec Copying files from the server to the WinXP PCs seems fine. Running Samba at debug = 2 for that PC shows normal file opens / closes. Running Samba at debug = 3 shows a lot of info, but none discernable as a problem (I'm not a SAMBA expert, but have been using for some 6 or 7 years now.) Using local, not roaming profiles. Win2K Server on a P3-450MHz PC - sole purpose is as a PDC and a license / software metering server Settings were for USER=SHARE [global] workgroup = SKEES log file = /var/opt/samba/log.%m max log size = 2000 name resolve order = host wins bcast max open files = 1000 socket options = IPTOS_LOWDELAY TCP_NODELAY os level = 255 preferred master = Yes wins support = Yes kernel oplocks = No guest account = guest create mask = 0660 directory mask = 0770 force directory mode = 02000 hosts allow = 192.168.254. hosts deny = 0.0.0.0/0 short preserve case = No Current Settings for USER=DOMAIN [global] security = DOMAIN -Added password server = * --Added workgroup = NTDOMAIN--changed log file = /var/opt/samba/log.%m max log size = 2000 name resolve order = host wins bcast max open files = 1000 socket options = IPTOS_LOWDELAY TCP_NODELAY os level = 255 preferred master = Yes wins support = Yes kernel oplocks = No guest account = guest create mask = 0660 directory mask = 0770 force directory mode = 02000 hosts allow = 192.168.254. hosts deny = 0.0.0.0/0 short preserve case = No encrypt passwords = yes Added -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks
I am also fairly confident that this organization IS outgrowing QuickBooks. However, I am using win9x machines to transfer to this server, and only able to see a few MB / second say 2 or 3 MB/sec (VIA FTP... eliminating Samba from the whole Picture). Samba is a little better than FTP speed wise, but not much. Win XP and FTP can transfer at 6-7,sometimes even 8 MB/sec. I swear I've checked everything. What could possibly be causing this. -Original Message- From: CLIFFORD ILKAY [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 4:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks At 02:25 PM 28/05/2003 -0500, Brandon Lederer wrote: I have spent much of the day today researching performance tuning with samba. I have tried everything that I can find out about how to make performance faster. I checked disk performance with Bonnie, installed FTP and tested a transfer that way, achieving 6-7 MB / second. about 30 seconds for 150 MB file. I was finally able to achieve those speeds on a file transfer to the server through samba. But QuickBooks is still just as slow as it was. Its performance has not changed a bit. I am banging my head against the wall on this. I am going nuts. Please Help. I doubt it has anything to do with Samba. Have you tried to run QB on a Windows file server on the same or similar hardware? I suspect what you are running up against is an architectural limitation of QB. Many low end databases have abysmal performance in a multiuser situation and I doubt QB is any different. If you instrument your network, say with Ethereal, you will probably find that there is an incredible amount of network traffic as QB clients hit the QB data file on your Samba server. QB does not use a client/server architecture so even the simplest queries ship large data sets across the wire to the clients. It isn't just data but indexes as well that gets sent back to the client. Add a good measure of badly implemented locking in the database and you have a recipe for molasses slow network performance. Microsoft Access is also notorious for sluggish performance when you have more than a handful of clients accessing a .mdb file across the network so the problem is hardly unique to QB. Windows apps tend to like using opportunistic locking to improve perceived performance but the problem with that is the potential for database corruption. If you turn op locks off, which is the safe thing to do, performance will suffer. Many small businesses run blissfully ignorant of how vulnerable their data is in products like QuickBooks and Simply Accounting and many of them are lucky most of the time. However, when things blow up with these low end products, and they do on occasion, they blow up pretty spectacularly, particularly with larger accounting data files. Assuming further testing proves that Samba, something specific to your server, a bad networking component such as a driver, card, cable, jack, or switch is not the culprit and you conclude that it is after all an architectural limitation, if you cannot live with the poor network performance of QuickBooks, you may want to consider an accounting application that is better designed. I'm evaluating SQL Ledger http://www.sql-ledger.org which is an Open Source client/server product. Regards, Clifford Ilkay Dinamis Corporation 3266 Yonge Street, Suite 1419 Toronto, Ontario Canada M4N 3P6 Tel: 416-410-3326 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
RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks
Its definitely a problem with quickbooks. I had a client that had a rather large qb file (about 120MB). It died a spectacular death. What was amazing is how quickbooks handled it. They told my client that their data files were only safe up to around 20MB at the most. This was repeated at their highest level of paid support. We sent our data file to them to rebuild and were told that we needed to move to a different product if we were going to continue to have so much data stored in their system. I would never use something like quickbooks again... Their multi-user support sucks! Jason N. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of CLIFFORD ILKAY Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 4:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks At 02:25 PM 28/05/2003 -0500, Brandon Lederer wrote: I have spent much of the day today researching performance tuning with samba. I have tried everything that I can find out about how to make performance faster. I checked disk performance with Bonnie, installed FTP and tested a transfer that way, achieving 6-7 MB / second. about 30 seconds for 150 MB file. I was finally able to achieve those speeds on a file transfer to the server through samba. But QuickBooks is still just as slow as it was. Its performance has not changed a bit. I am banging my head against the wall on this. I am going nuts. Please Help. I doubt it has anything to do with Samba. Have you tried to run QB on a Windows file server on the same or similar hardware? I suspect what you are running up against is an architectural limitation of QB. Many low end databases have abysmal performance in a multiuser situation and I doubt QB is any different. If you instrument your network, say with Ethereal, you will probably find that there is an incredible amount of network traffic as QB clients hit the QB data file on your Samba server. QB does not use a client/server architecture so even the simplest queries ship large data sets across the wire to the clients. It isn't just data but indexes as well that gets sent back to the client. Add a good measure of badly implemented locking in the database and you have a recipe for molasses slow network performance. Microsoft Access is also notorious for sluggish performance when you have more than a handful of clients accessing a .mdb file across the network so the problem is hardly unique to QB. Windows apps tend to like using opportunistic locking to improve perceived performance but the problem with that is the potential for database corruption. If you turn op locks off, which is the safe thing to do, performance will suffer. Many small businesses run blissfully ignorant of how vulnerable their data is in products like QuickBooks and Simply Accounting and many of them are lucky most of the time. However, when things blow up with these low end products, and they do on occasion, they blow up pretty spectacularly, particularly with larger accounting data files. Assuming further testing proves that Samba, something specific to your server, a bad networking component such as a driver, card, cable, jack, or switch is not the culprit and you conclude that it is after all an architectural limitation, if you cannot live with the poor network performance of QuickBooks, you may want to consider an accounting application that is better designed. I'm evaluating SQL Ledger http://www.sql-ledger.org which is an Open Source client/server product. Regards, Clifford Ilkay Dinamis Corporation 3266 Yonge Street, Suite 1419 Toronto, Ontario Canada M4N 3P6 Tel: 416-410-3326 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
RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks
I am not sure which version of Samba you are using, but the first thing anybody is going to tell you is to upgrade to 2.2.8, if you already haven't. After that take a look at some of the notes found on our web site at: http://www.Drouillard.ca/TipsTricks/Samba/Oplocks.htm Also a few things interesting in your config file: socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_SNDBUF=2048 SO_RCVBUF=2048 It would be surprising if bumping up the BUF's did not increase the speed. You can find a test program in the above link to help you with that. What is the speed of your network and NIC? Regards - Gerald Drouillard President Drouillard Associates, Inc. http://www.Drouillard.ca -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brandon Lederer Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 5:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks Yes OPLOCKS are off. My smb.conf file follows: [global] workgroup = HMS server string = CBS Quickbooks Server (Samba) load printers = yes printer admin = @HMS+adminx printcap name = cups printing = cups guest ok = no restrict anonymous = yes valid users = @HMS+cbsusers, roz, root, dennis #invalid users = root admin users = root, @HMS+adminx log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m # max size of the log files (in Kb). max log size = 1000 #log level = 100 syslog = 0 security = domain password server = hms-pdc encrypt passwords = yes browsable = yes socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_SNDBUF=2048 SO_RCVBUF=2048 #I've been playing with this here. 8192 made it slower oplocks = no level2 oplocks = no wins server = 192.168.2.5 dns proxy = no passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u passwd chat = *Enter\snew\sUNIX\spassword:* %n\n *Retype\snew\sUNIX\spassword:* %n\n . winbind uid = 1-2 winbind gid = 1-2 template shell = /bin/false template homedir = /dev/null winbind cache time = 10 winbind separator = + #and the relevant share [qbdata] comment = QuickBooks Data path = /data/qbdata browsable = yes writable = no write list = @HMS+Finance, @HMS+adminx create mode = 0770 force create mode = 0770 directory mode = 0770 force directory mode = 0770 -Original Message- From: Gerald Drouillard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:20 PM To: Brandon Lederer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks Did you turn oplocks off? Can we see your smb.conf file? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brandon Lederer Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:05 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks Just also verified that WinXP and Win98SE Exhibit the SAME issue. almost identical time from one OS to the Other. I just cant seem to make it any better. -Original Message- From: Brandon Lederer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:26 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks I have spent much of the day today researching performance tuning with samba. I have tried everything that I can find out about how to make performance faster. I checked disk performance with Bonnie, installed FTP and tested a transfer that way, achieving 6-7 MB / second. about 30 seconds for 150 MB file. I was finally able to achieve those speeds on a file transfer to the server through samba. But QuickBooks is still just as slow as it was. Its performance has not changed a bit. I am banging my head against the wall on this. I am going nuts. Please Help. Brandon -- 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 -- 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
RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks
I used an Excellent Loaded WINXP computer today. Samba is outspeeding FTP. Approaching 7 MB / sec on reads, 6 MB / sec on writes. Linux sees these speeds on FTP. Unable to test sambaclient on Linux. This isn't anything to complain about, albeit there is _better_. But a decent 98SE machine cant touch these speeds. Is there any explanation as to why? -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks
That's strange. Samba shouldn't be able to get close to FTP speeds. I was able to get 10.5MB/sec with FTP and only 7.59MB/sec with Samba. I'm running on a switched 100Mb network. The network seems to be my limitation in my case as my server hard drives seem to be able to output about 20MB/sec. I can get the same speeds on Win98 as I can on WinXP. You have to tune a default Win98's TCP/IP performance to get the best results out of it. quote who=Brandon Lederer I used an Excellent Loaded WINXP computer today. Samba is outspeeding FTP. Approaching 7 MB / sec on reads, 6 MB / sec on writes. Linux sees these speeds on FTP. Unable to test sambaclient on Linux. This isn't anything to complain about, albeit there is _better_. But a decent 98SE machine cant touch these speeds. Is there any explanation as to why? -- 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
[Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks
I have spent much of the day today researching performance tuning with samba. I have tried everything that I can find out about how to make performance faster. I checked disk performance with Bonnie, installed FTP and tested a transfer that way, achieving 6-7 MB / second. about 30 seconds for 150 MB file. I was finally able to achieve those speeds on a file transfer to the server through samba. But QuickBooks is still just as slow as it was. Its performance has not changed a bit. I am banging my head against the wall on this. I am going nuts. Please Help. Brandon -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks
Just also verified that WinXP and Win98SE Exhibit the SAME issue. almost identical time from one OS to the Other. I just cant seem to make it any better. -Original Message- From: Brandon Lederer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:26 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks I have spent much of the day today researching performance tuning with samba. I have tried everything that I can find out about how to make performance faster. I checked disk performance with Bonnie, installed FTP and tested a transfer that way, achieving 6-7 MB / second. about 30 seconds for 150 MB file. I was finally able to achieve those speeds on a file transfer to the server through samba. But QuickBooks is still just as slow as it was. Its performance has not changed a bit. I am banging my head against the wall on this. I am going nuts. Please Help. Brandon -- 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
RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks
Did you turn oplocks off? Can we see your smb.conf file? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brandon Lederer Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:05 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks Just also verified that WinXP and Win98SE Exhibit the SAME issue. almost identical time from one OS to the Other. I just cant seem to make it any better. -Original Message- From: Brandon Lederer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:26 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks I have spent much of the day today researching performance tuning with samba. I have tried everything that I can find out about how to make performance faster. I checked disk performance with Bonnie, installed FTP and tested a transfer that way, achieving 6-7 MB / second. about 30 seconds for 150 MB file. I was finally able to achieve those speeds on a file transfer to the server through samba. But QuickBooks is still just as slow as it was. Its performance has not changed a bit. I am banging my head against the wall on this. I am going nuts. Please Help. Brandon -- 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks
Yes OPLOCKS are off. My smb.conf file follows: [global] workgroup = HMS server string = CBS Quickbooks Server (Samba) load printers = yes printer admin = @HMS+adminx printcap name = cups printing = cups guest ok = no restrict anonymous = yes valid users = @HMS+cbsusers, roz, root, dennis #invalid users = root admin users = root, @HMS+adminx log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m # max size of the log files (in Kb). max log size = 1000 #log level = 100 syslog = 0 security = domain password server = hms-pdc encrypt passwords = yes browsable = yes socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_SNDBUF=2048 SO_RCVBUF=2048 #I've been playing with this here. 8192 made it slower oplocks = no level2 oplocks = no wins server = 192.168.2.5 dns proxy = no passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u passwd chat = *Enter\snew\sUNIX\spassword:* %n\n *Retype\snew\sUNIX\spassword:* %n\n . winbind uid = 1-2 winbind gid = 1-2 template shell = /bin/false template homedir = /dev/null winbind cache time = 10 winbind separator = + #and the relevant share [qbdata] comment = QuickBooks Data path = /data/qbdata browsable = yes writable = no write list = @HMS+Finance, @HMS+adminx create mode = 0770 force create mode = 0770 directory mode = 0770 force directory mode = 0770 -Original Message- From: Gerald Drouillard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:20 PM To: Brandon Lederer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks Did you turn oplocks off? Can we see your smb.conf file? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brandon Lederer Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:05 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks Just also verified that WinXP and Win98SE Exhibit the SAME issue. almost identical time from one OS to the Other. I just cant seem to make it any better. -Original Message- From: Brandon Lederer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:26 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks I have spent much of the day today researching performance tuning with samba. I have tried everything that I can find out about how to make performance faster. I checked disk performance with Bonnie, installed FTP and tested a transfer that way, achieving 6-7 MB / second. about 30 seconds for 150 MB file. I was finally able to achieve those speeds on a file transfer to the server through samba. But QuickBooks is still just as slow as it was. Its performance has not changed a bit. I am banging my head against the wall on this. I am going nuts. Please Help. Brandon -- 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] Slow performance with lots of files in one directory
Unless you are a programmer, I am afraid the only thing you can do is to modify how the files are stored in that directory. I had the files on a ext3 RAID5 with lots of memory config and any type of access to that directory would bring smb to a crawl. I even tried putting the files on a separate XFS RAID5 server and mount the directory, but seemed to just make it worse even with a 1Gig connection between the servers. The files that I store are from our in-house imaging program. Our file names were all numeric so it was just a case of changing the name structure from 123456.TIF to /3/2/1/456.TIF. In the new file name format, a directory has no more than 999+10 directory entries. Now the system is working better than ever. Regards - Gerald Drouillard Owner and Consultant Drouillard Associates, Inc. http://www.Drouillard.ca -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anders Nordby Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Samba] Slow performance with lots of files in one directory Hello, I've got performance problems with copying small files over to a Samba share in a directory that has lots of small files (1 to 2 files). It takes too long time to copy new files (they drip in at a fast pace), and smbd eats a lot of CPU time. Is there any way to make Samba run faster in this situation? Cheers, -- Anders Nordby Aftenposten AS, Systemteknisk avd. Tlf.: +47 22864083 Fax: +47 22864074 -- 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
RE: [Samba] Slow performance with lots of files in one directory
Have you read the XFS tuning recommendations? The XFS developers bitch because people don't tune their volumes, then they don't understand bad performance... notes from Gentoo install: snip Note: You may want to add a couple of additional flags to the mkfs.xfs command: -d agcount=3 -l size=32m. The -d agcount=3 command will lower the number of allocation groups. XFS will insist on using at least 1 allocation group per 4 GB of your partition, so, for example, if you hava a 20 GB partition you will need a minimum agcount of 5. The try this w/ XFS snip mkfs.xfs -d agcount=(numgigs / 4) -l size=32m ===THEN== when you mount, try logbuf=8 and noatime in the mount options. Windows is a killer for atimes. js On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 07:05, Gerald Drouillard wrote: Unless you are a programmer, I am afraid the only thing you can do is to modify how the files are stored in that directory. I had the files on a ext3 RAID5 with lots of memory config and any type of access to that directory would bring smb to a crawl. I even tried putting the files on a separate XFS RAID5 server and mount the directory, but seemed to just make it worse even with a 1Gig connection between the servers. The files that I store are from our in-house imaging program. Our file names were all numeric so it was just a case of changing the name structure from 123456.TIF to /3/2/1/456.TIF. In the new file name format, a directory has no more than 999+10 directory entries. Now the system is working better than ever. Regards - Gerald Drouillard Owner and Consultant Drouillard Associates, Inc. http://www.Drouillard.ca -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anders Nordby Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Samba] Slow performance with lots of files in one directory Hello, I've got performance problems with copying small files over to a Samba share in a directory that has lots of small files (1 to 2 files). It takes too long time to copy new files (they drip in at a fast pace), and smbd eats a lot of CPU time. Is there any way to make Samba run faster in this situation? Cheers, -- Anders Nordby Aftenposten AS, Systemteknisk avd. Tlf.: +47 22864083 Fax: +47 22864074 -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- VB programmers ask why no one takes them seriously, it's somewhat akin to a McDonalds manager asking employees why they don't take their 'career' seriously. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Samba] Slow performance
Hi,I'm trying to generate a multiple domain browselist but I don't get it to work.I've tried everyting by the book but the result is always the same:I can see the other workgroup(s) but they are empty. Currently I've added the following rules to the smb.conf remote browse sync = 192.168.2.2 192.168.2.4 remote announce = 192.168.2.2 192.168.2.4As far as I understand both should do the trick but even together they don't work.NetworkTwo samba servers (2.2.7a) connected by a iptunnel (no broadcasts) both with own domain/workgroup Here are the current browselists:Browselist 1"QUICKSOFT" c0001000 "LUNA" "QUICKSOFT""LUNA" 400d9a03 "Luna our moon" "QUICKSOFT""THETAURI" c0001000 "NEPTUNE" "THETAURI""NOX" 40011003 "" "QUICKSOFT""LAPPIE" 40011003 "" "QUICKSOFT""PHOBOS" 40011003 "" "QUICKSOFT""WERK" 80001000 "COBAIN" "WERK"Browselist 2"THETAURI" c0001000 "TERRA" "THETAURI""TERRA" 400d9a03 "" "THETAURI""URANUS" 40011007 "" "THETAURI""SATURNUS" 42029203 "" "THETAURI""QUICKSOFT" 80001000 "LUNA" "QUICKSOFT"Does anyone have a clue as to what is happening here?Thanks!Andre -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Slow performance with lots of files in one directory
Hello, I've got performance problems with copying small files over to a Samba share in a directory that has lots of small files (1 to 2 files). It takes too long time to copy new files (they drip in at a fast pace), and smbd eats a lot of CPU time. Is there any way to make Samba run faster in this situation? Cheers, -- Anders Nordby Aftenposten AS, Systemteknisk avd. Tlf.: +47 22864083 Fax: +47 22864074 -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Slow performance with lots of files in one directory
Anders Nordby writes: I've got performance problems with copying small files over to a Samba share in a directory that has lots of small files (1 to 2 files). It takes too long time to copy new files (they drip in at a fast pace), and smbd eats a lot of CPU time. This could be not so much a Samba problem as a Unix kernel problem. Traditional Unix filesystems (UFS, FFS, ext2, et c.) do not deal well with very full directories. See Maurice Bach's book *Design of the Unix Operating System* and M. K. McKusick's *Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System*. These are both just great books. If you are on Linux, try using one of the new filesystems like ReiserFS, XFS or JFS. Among other abilities, they can handle extremely full directories better. -- Chris Palmer Systems Programmer GeneEd -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Slow performance with lots of files in one directory
At 15:04 09/01/2003, Chris Palmer wrote: Anders Nordby writes: I've got performance problems with copying small files over to a Samba share in a directory that has lots of small files (1 to 2 files). It takes too long time to copy new files (they drip in at a fast pace), and smbd eats a lot of CPU time. This could be not so much a Samba problem as a Unix kernel problem. Traditional Unix filesystems (UFS, FFS, ext2, et c.) do not deal well with very full directories. See Maurice Bach's book *Design of the Unix Operating System* and M. K. McKusick's *Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System*. These are both just great books. If you are on Linux, try using one of the new filesystems like ReiserFS, XFS or JFS. Among other abilities, they can handle extremely full directories better. What about EXT3 file system? Thank you Roberto -- Chris Palmer Systems Programmer GeneEd -- 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
Re: [Samba] Slow performance with lots of files in one directory
Roberto João Lopes Garcia writes: What about EXT3 file system? ext3 is ext2 plus journalling, and so not fundamentally different. -- Chris Palmer Systems Programmer GeneEd -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Slow performance with lots of files in one directory
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 04:19:27PM -0200, Roberto João Lopes Garcia wrote: At 15:04 09/01/2003, Chris Palmer wrote: Anders Nordby writes: I've got performance problems with copying small files over to a Samba share in a directory that has lots of small files (1 to 2 files). It takes too long time to copy new files (they drip in at a fast pace), and smbd eats a lot of CPU time. This could be not so much a Samba problem as a Unix kernel problem. Traditional Unix filesystems (UFS, FFS, ext2, et c.) do not deal well with very full directories. See Maurice Bach's book *Design of the Unix Operating System* and M. K. McKusick's *Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System*. These are both just great books. If you are on Linux, try using one of the new filesystems like ReiserFS, XFS or JFS. Among other abilities, they can handle extremely full directories better. What about EXT3 file system? EXT3 uses the same linear directory structure as EXT2. Therefore, it suffers the same performance penalty when dealing with large directories. -- JF -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
