Rick Barnes wrote:
> happymaster23 wrote:
>> My question is why is this option disabled as default in CentOS?
>
> I believe you are not getting the answer you seek because you are not
> asking the right question to the right people.
>
> The right question is "Why is this option disabled as defaul
happymaster23 wrote:
> My question is why is this option disabled as default in CentOS?
I believe you are not getting the answer you seek because you are not
asking the right question to the right people.
The right question is "Why is this option disabled as default in
*RHEL*?" The right people t
No, I have not any problem. With use sendfile = yes it works great. My
question is, why is this configuration option set to be off in CentOS?
You know - when I want to read something about oplocks (advantages &
disadvantages) it was very easy - there are tons of documentation.
When I want to read
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 19:01 +0200, happymaster23 wrote:
> This is not problem of disks, this is problem of Samba (operating
> systems in network are Windows XP and Windows 7 only, so this should
> not be problem caused by Windows).
>
> I am asking because of risks and disadvantages. This is same
happymaster23 wrote:
> This is not problem of disks, this is problem of Samba (operating
> systems in network are Windows XP and Windows 7 only, so this should
> not be problem caused by Windows).
>
> I am asking because of risks and disadvantages. This is same as
> oplocks - it may be performance
This is not problem of disks, this is problem of Samba (operating
systems in network are Windows XP and Windows 7 only, so this should
not be problem caused by Windows).
I am asking because of risks and disadvantages. This is same as
oplocks - it may be performance tweak, but it is potentially dan
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 15:41 +0200, happymaster23 wrote:
> Thank you for replies,
>
> with option "use sendfile = yes" it works great (with good speed), but
> I am asking why is this option in CentOS disabled as default, even in
> standard samba build it should be (according to Samba release notes
nal message follows ---
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Samba "use sendfile" configuration option set do
> disabled as default - why?
> From: Christoph Maser
> To: "CentOS mailing list"
> Date: 24-08-2009 13:27
>
>
> Am Montag, den 24.08.2009, 13:24 +02
the nic seems to be working but it actually
has a fault.
Regards
Per Qvindesland
--- Original message follows ---
SUBJECT: Re: [CentOS] Samba "use sendfile" configuration option set
do disabled as default - why?
FROM: Christoph Maser
TO: "CentOS mailing list"
DATE: 24-08-2009 1
Am Montag, den 24.08.2009, 13:24 +0200 schrieb Per Qvindesland:
> socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_RCVBUF=65536
> SO_SNDBUF=65536
These options are often found if you search for samba tuning. Did
someone actaully benchmark the results? Shouldn't tuning buffers manuall
be oboslete now
Hi
Have you tried this one socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY
SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536
Also look at the log level reduce it to level to or lower.
Per
--- Original message follows ---
SUBJECT: [CentOS] Samba "use sendfile" configuration option set do
disabled as def
Hello,
I had problems with speed of Samba, so I was looking for some solution
and I had discovered "use sendfile" configuration option. I was
checking all Samba release notes and I had discovered, that from some
version (older than is in CentOS repo) this option was turned on as
default. So my que
12 matches
Mail list logo
