Miguel Medalha wrote: > >> socket options = SO_BROADCAST SO_KEEPALIVE SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192 >> TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY > > It has been repeated "ad nauseam" that with modern kernels you shouldn't > use "socket options" unless you know very well what you are doing and > you have a very good reason for doing so. > > Also, in my case I found that the following parameter had a big positive > impact in performance: > use sendfile= yes > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba >
Thanks for answer, Miguel. I use "socket options" because 99% places in Internet recommends this, and no one say about "modern kernels" - really. You are first :) And of course, this options not give me any visible effect. I will try with "use sendfile = yes" but i`m not sure about this help.. Say me please, what transfer speed in the yours LAN ? Speed between Windows clients and SAMBA server ? You have done some test? I ask this because i can`t believe what SAMBA can do good transfer speed. My test show me bad results - Linux->Server FTP = 100 Mb/sec Linux->Server NFS = 80-100 Mb/sec Windows-to-Windows = 50-80 MB/Sec Windows -> Server = 14-20 MB/sec. And this is my most pain :( Linux -> Server (CIFS) = 10-20 MB/sec Can you show me, how yours SAMBA work in Gigabit LAN ? What speeds ? -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Samba-3.5-slow.-Help-with-benchmarks-%21-tp27894473p27895918.html Sent from the Samba - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba