Jay - I tried the test without any options (i.e. all default) and still get the same results
Javid - I am using copy Jeremy - All clients are Win2k or WinXP. I would very much like to blame the hardware for the problem, but since NFS yields better performance I am thinking SAMBA may be the cause here. Vinay Kudithipudi Associate Network Operations Engineer Spirian Technologies Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Jay Ts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:50 PM To: Vinay Kudithipudi Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba - Performance Issues On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 12:57:17PM -0500, Vinay Kudithipudi wrote: > > ===SMB.CONF=== > [global] > workgroup = MYGROUP > netbios name = {HOSTNAME} > wins server = {WINSSERVER} > server string = {HOSTNAME} > security = SHARE > encrypt passwords = Yes > log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m > max log size = 50 > socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192 IIRC, someone wrote in recently saying that the sizes of SO_RCVBUF and SO_SNDBUF can have huge effects on performance, and setting them to 8192 (which used to be a good idea) can reduce performance. I suggest removing them from the socket options and measuring the performance at the defaults, then try modifying them and comparing performance. Also, TCP_NODELAY is the default, right? So maybe just comment out the socket options parameter, restart the daemons, and check to see if the problem goes away. > I was wondering if there is any documentation for fine tuning SAMBA. > Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Nowadays, it's usually best to "leave things alone" (i.e., at the defaults). It's important to not change things in a way that reduces performance. Jay Ts -- 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
