Hi, Helmut
>> How do they lose the connection?
I am working in a (very small) LAN with a Samba 3.4.x server, a Windows-
2000 client and a Windows XP-Home client.
They just can not use "P" drive after some time.
1. User simple mount network share as permanent drive named "P". All ok.
2. Some
Hi all.
I have some complaints from Win XP users.
Win XP clients regularly lost samba share - mapped as network drive. I don`t
see any errors in logs.
1. I have 4 linux machines, with mapped SAMBA 3.5 shares as CIFS. - never
lost.
2. Some Windows XP clients have this problem, but some is not.
csirt-3 wrote:
>
> Hi,
> which version of Samba do i need, when i want to run Win 7 Clients ?
> At the moment i am running Samba version 3.0.28a with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS.
>
> regards
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions: https://lists.samba.org
Jim Salter-2 wrote:
>
> I get about 51MB/sec over my gigabit LAN, serving from Samba 3.4.0 on
> Ubuntu Karmic amd64 to smbclient 3.3.6 on FreeBSD 7.3-R amd64.
> 5tb# smbclient -I 192.168.0.20 -U user //192.168.0.20/share -c "get
> 1G.bin"
> Enter user's password:
> Domain=[BANSHEE] OS=[Unix] Se
The problem is solved.
It was problem of extremely chaotic LAN topology, and old hardware also. I
found 2 computers ( Windows 7 ) - with transfer speed to SAMBA server =
80-100 MB/sec. Fast like FTP and NFS.
I don`t say nothing about LAN topology, because our administrator say me
"LAN is absolut
also test with connection between another linux node and server:
LinuxNode02 -> Server : NFS
LinuxNode02:~ # time cp -v /4GB_test.file /Server/Projects/
`/4GB_test.file' -> `/Server/Projects/4GB_test.file'
real0m59.831s
user0m0.120s
sys 0m7.692s
approx.speed = 69.4 MB/sec
John M. Drescher wrote:
>
> The "switch" here is a metaphor for ability to change the default
> socket options.
> Basically giving you an ability to change some setting does not mean
> the setting will help if you do change it.
> John
>
Nice metaphor... I have insane number of trying, with al
Helmut Hullen wrote:
>
> Give a man a switch, and he'll switch!
> Viele Gruesse!
> Helmut
>
What about? What "switch" you mean?
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Samba-3.5-slow.-Help-with-benchmarks-%21-tp27894473p27897251.html
Sent from the Samba - General mailing list
Miguel Medalha wrote:
>
>
>> Can you show me, how yours SAMBA work in Gigabit LAN ? What speeds ?
>>
>
> I can't measure them right now but I can tell you that I have 2 networks
> consisting of Samba Domain Controllers serving only Windows clients and
> the network speeds are very high.
John M. Drescher wrote:
>
> Socket options will not quadruple your speed.
>
> I would start by investigating the reason for slowness. Is this with
> small files? What performance do you get for a 4GB file? Could
> permissions be slowing you down? Could it be the raid?
>
>
Thanks for attenti
Miguel Medalha wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> The problem with the information on the I
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 v
Situation:
Server:
Linux OpenSUSE 11.2 x86 fileserver.
Quad Core CPU,
2 Gb RAM,
Raid 5 SMB-shared massive. 2TB
Samba 3.5.1
Clients:
16 Linux clients (OpenSUSE 11.2) - connect to server trough NFS.
8 Windows clients (5 Windows XP, 3 or 4 Windows 7).
Server - is member of windows Domain. (anot
13 matches
Mail list logo
