Re: [Samba] samba 3.3 - poor performance (compared to NFS)
OK, I can do that. In production this box will not be CIFS-mounted by Linux machines, but I wanted to do the iozone benchmarks so I could compare apples-to-apples vs. NFS. I will go hunt down and repackage a newer CIFS client for centos 5.5. Any other hints on server-side tuning that I should be aware of for this case? Scott Stone Lead Developer, DCS-RD Trend Micro, Inc. http://www.trendmicro.com -Original Message- From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:j...@samba.org] Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:54 PM To: Scott Stone (DCS-RD-US) Cc: samba@lists.samba.org Subject: Re: [Samba] samba 3.3 - poor performance (compared to NFS) On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 02:51:17PM -0700, scott_st...@trendmicro.com wrote: > I have a system that I'm vetting as a NAS server. It has a 2.0TB XFS > filesystem mounted on /storage and I'm doing benchmarks using nfs3, nfs4, and > samba. I'm testing via iozone by mounting the filesystem from my "nas > client" box and then running iozone on the mounted filesystem. NFS seems > pretty fast - ie, several orders of magnitude faster than samba, and I'm > wondering why, so I'm beseeching the help of the List. :) > > > > server: sama 3.3.8 > > client: Linux CentOS 5.5 cifs mount, "mount -t cifs -o > rsize=32768,wsize=32768 //server/storage /storage" > > Client is on the same LAN as the server, albeit different VLANs. Traffic is > routed through intel gigabit NICs and Cisco Nexus 5000/7000 series switches. > NAS server has a 4x 1gbe 802.3ad port channel set up with the Cisco 7000 > switch, although I've run these tests both with and without the port channel > with very similar results (as I'd expect, since the client is only a single > 1gbe interface to begin with). > > > > (the 32768 numbers are the same as used in the NFS3/NFS4 tests). > > Again, the problem is *markedly* slower performance on CIFS than with NFS, > and I cannot discern why, so I'm assuming it's some kind of samba tuning > issue. I do plan to re-test with samba4, but any recommendations as to a > specific version of samba that I could use which would provide maximum > performance/stability would also be much appreciated. You might want to try a more recent cifsfs build than the one on CentOS 5.5. It's almost certainly a client issue here, I know Steve and Jeff have been putting work into improving the CIFSFS client performance (Steve and Jeff please comment :-). Jeremy. TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your mail system. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
[Samba] samba 3.3 - poor performance (compared to NFS)
I have a system that I'm vetting as a NAS server. It has a 2.0TB XFS filesystem mounted on /storage and I'm doing benchmarks using nfs3, nfs4, and samba. I'm testing via iozone by mounting the filesystem from my "nas client" box and then running iozone on the mounted filesystem. NFS seems pretty fast - ie, several orders of magnitude faster than samba, and I'm wondering why, so I'm beseeching the help of the List. :) server: sama 3.3.8 client: Linux CentOS 5.5 cifs mount, "mount -t cifs -o rsize=32768,wsize=32768 //server/storage /storage" Client is on the same LAN as the server, albeit different VLANs. Traffic is routed through intel gigabit NICs and Cisco Nexus 5000/7000 series switches. NAS server has a 4x 1gbe 802.3ad port channel set up with the Cisco 7000 switch, although I've run these tests both with and without the port channel with very similar results (as I'd expect, since the client is only a single 1gbe interface to begin with). (the 32768 numbers are the same as used in the NFS3/NFS4 tests). Again, the problem is *markedly* slower performance on CIFS than with NFS, and I cannot discern why, so I'm assuming it's some kind of samba tuning issue. I do plan to re-test with samba4, but any recommendations as to a specific version of samba that I could use which would provide maximum performance/stability would also be much appreciated. /etc/smb/smb.conf on the server is below: [global] workgroup = myworkgroup server string = Samba %v netbios name = myhostname.mydomain hosts allow = 10. log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log max log size = 50 security = user passdb backend = tdbsam os level = 33 wins support = yes wins proxy = yes dns proxy = yes load printers = no map archive = no map hidden = no map read only = no map system = no store dos attributes = yes socket options = IPTOS_LOWDELAY TCP_NODELAY pam password change = yes [storage] comment = storage volume browseable = yes writable = yes path = /storage Scott Stone Lead Developer, DCS-RD Trend Micro, Inc. http://www.trendmicro.com TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your mail system. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] samba version to use on CentOS?
it's Fedora EPEL which is the enterprise repository.. ie, Fedora packages specifically ported to work on CentOS. It used to be part of the fedora mirror but now it's its own thing, at least on mirrors.kernel.org. Turns out, however, that both versions of samba are part of the CentOS 5 base repo. Scott Stone Lead Developer, DCS-RD Trend Micro, Inc. http://www.trendmicro.com -Original Message- From: samba-boun...@lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-boun...@lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of Gaiseric Vandal Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 1:37 PM To: samba@lists.samba.org Subject: Re: [Samba] samba version to use on CentOS? If you want Windows 7 support, you need Samba 3.3.x. Which Fedora repo? I found that FC6 RPM's usually installed OK on RedHat RHEL5.x but anything above was likely to need a newer glibc or libc (or something like that.) On 09/28/2010 04:23 PM, scott_st...@trendmicro.com wrote: > I see via yum that there is "samba" and there is "samba3x" available for > CentOS (my boxes are hooked to the main CentOS repo, Fedora EPEL, and > RPMFORGE). > > > > 'samba' is 3.0.33 > > 'samba3x' is 3.3.8 > > > > Is there any down-side to upgrading to 'samba3x' and running 3.3.8 instead of > 3.0.33? I'm assuming that, in general, I should be running the latest stable > version, yes? > > > > > > Scott Stone > > Lead Developer, DCS-RD > > Trend Micro, Inc. http://www.trendmicro.com > > > > > TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE > The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential > and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. If > you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose > this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or > telephone and delete the original message from your mail system. > -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your mail system. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
[Samba] samba version to use on CentOS?
I see via yum that there is "samba" and there is "samba3x" available for CentOS (my boxes are hooked to the main CentOS repo, Fedora EPEL, and RPMFORGE). 'samba' is 3.0.33 'samba3x' is 3.3.8 Is there any down-side to upgrading to 'samba3x' and running 3.3.8 instead of 3.0.33? I'm assuming that, in general, I should be running the latest stable version, yes? Scott Stone Lead Developer, DCS-RD Trend Micro, Inc. http://www.trendmicro.com TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your mail system. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] using include directives for shares?
sigh... I know I pressed the = button but I guess not hard enough.. and I wasn't looking for typos when debugging :) thanks for the good catch, that seemed to fix it... Still having performance problems with it but I'll start a new thread on that with more details. Scott Stone Lead Developer, DCS-RD Trend Micro, Inc. http://www.trendmicro.com -Original Message- From: samba-boun...@lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-boun...@lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of Juan Asensio Sánchez Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 2:18 AM To: Roel van Meer; samba@lists.samba.org Subject: Re: [Samba] using include directives for shares? include = /path/to/file (note "=") 2010/9/28 Roel van Meer > scott_st...@trendmicro.com writes: > > From the smb.conf manpage, it says that an 'include ' will include >> that file into smb.conf as if it were typed in place. >> > > Yes, that should work. > > Some things you want to look at: > - Is the include file world readable? > - Does the output of 'testparm -sv' give any clues? > > Regards, > > roel > > > > >> >> /etc/samba/smb.conf contains: >> >> >> [global] >> >> >> >> >> include /etc/samba/smb.conf.local >> >> >> >> >> and then /etc/samba/smb.conf.local contains my share definitions. I'm >> doing it this way because I'm using puppet to manage the global parameters >> on my various file servers, but each individual file server may have a >> different local configuration that operations guys without access to the >> puppetmaster might need to change. It seems to me that this should be >> supported as I'm doing it, but it appears not - the shares defined in >> smb.conf.local aren't getting served. What am I doing wrong, or am I >> running up against a known limitation? >> >> >> Using CentOS 5, latest updates installed, samba RPM version >> samba-3.0.33-3.29.el5_5.1 >> >> >> >> >> Scott Stone >> >> Lead Developer, DCS-RD >> >> Trend Micro, Inc. http://www.trendmicro.com >> >> >> >> TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE >> The information contained in this email and any attachments is >> confidential and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual >> property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not >> authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you >> notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from >> your mail system. >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the >> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba >> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba > -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your mail system. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
[Samba] using include directives for shares?
>From the smb.conf manpage, it says that an 'include ' will include that >file into smb.conf as if it were typed in place. Yet, I have a setup where: /etc/samba/smb.conf contains: [global] include /etc/samba/smb.conf.local and then /etc/samba/smb.conf.local contains my share definitions. I'm doing it this way because I'm using puppet to manage the global parameters on my various file servers, but each individual file server may have a different local configuration that operations guys without access to the puppetmaster might need to change. It seems to me that this should be supported as I'm doing it, but it appears not - the shares defined in smb.conf.local aren't getting served. What am I doing wrong, or am I running up against a known limitation? Using CentOS 5, latest updates installed, samba RPM version samba-3.0.33-3.29.el5_5.1 Scott Stone Lead Developer, DCS-RD Trend Micro, Inc. http://www.trendmicro.com TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your mail system. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
