Re: [Samba] Aplication slow after migration

[Sinisa Bandin]

Felipe Martinez Hermo wrote:


OK, so we're apples to apples, so to speak; the servers are tuned 
the same.  I'll assume your disks are tuned from hdparm and up to 
snuff, otherwise you wouldn't be tuning sockets ;).  Did your old 
server have samba settings for oplocks set?



--
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott.

"Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong"
-Dennis Miller 
Erm, sorry, I didn't catch that you had 2 .conf files there.  I'm 
back to the drawing board.  Sorry about that.  Anyone else have any 
ideas?
Yes, that's whats shocking me. Apparently we're apples to apples. 
Except for the kernel (new&slow 2.6.18-4-686 vs old&fast 2.6.8)


I've sniffed both eth0 interfaces and I've got some more information. 
When talking to the slow server, the client needs to send 76 "TCP 
segment of a reassembled PDU" that are not sent when talking to the 
old and fast server.


How can I workaround this issue? Should I lower server's MTU? How much?

Thank you

Do you happen to have a Realtek 8169 based gigabit ethernet in new server?

If you do, I had the same problem several times last year, and solved 
all of them by changing motherboards (all were integrated, and I like 
them to stay that way because I can achieve full gigabit speed with 
several concurent clients)


Best regards,
Sinisa Bandin


--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Aplication slow after migration

[Felipe Martinez Hermo]

Scott Lovenberg escribió:

Felipe Martinez Hermo wrote:



Scott Lovenberg escribió:



On Feb 6, 2008 4:19 AM, Felipe Martinez Hermo 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:




Sinisa Bandin escribió:
>
>
> Felipe Martinez Hermo wrote:
>>
 OK, so we're apples to apples, so to speak; the servers are 
tuned
 the same.  I'll assume your disks are tuned from hdparm and 
up to
 snuff, otherwise you wouldn't be tuning sockets ;).  Did 
your old

 server have samba settings for oplocks set?


 --
 Peace and Blessings,
 -Scott.

 "Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong"
 -Dennis Miller
>>> Erm, sorry, I didn't catch that you had 2 .conf files 
there.  I'm

>>> back to the drawing board.  Sorry about that.  Anyone else
have any
>>> ideas?
>> Yes, that's whats shocking me. Apparently we're apples to 
apples.

>> Except for the kernel (new&slow 2.6.18-4-686 vs old&fast 2.6.8)
>>
>> I've sniffed both eth0 interfaces and I've got some more
information.
>> When talking to the slow server, the client needs to send 76 
"TCP
>> segment of a reassembled PDU" that are not sent when talking 
to the

>> old and fast server.
>>
>> How can I workaround this issue? Should I lower server's MTU?
How much?
>>
>> Thank you
> Do you happen to have a Realtek 8169 based gigabit ethernet in 
new

> server?
>
> If you do, I had the same problem several times last year, and
solved
> all of them by changing motherboards (all were integrated, and I
like
> them to stay that way because I can achieve full gigabit speed 
with

> several concurent clients)
>
> Best regards,
> Sinisa Bandin
>
>

No, machines are out-of-the-box HP DL servers:
Ethernet controller: Broadcom Corporation NetXtreme BCM5705_2 
Gigabit

Ethernet (rev 03)

I've made a spreadsheet with summarizing wireshark results and
comparing
results for both servers. You can see it here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pnLL2fInqFq2YKuZIphtQdA

It's meaningful that fast server makes 406 Trans2 calls, while slow
server makes 616 calls to perform the same operation. The
difference is
mainly in QUERY_PATH_INFO (200 vs 305) and FIND_FIRST2 (94 vs 199)
calls.

Next try: change ethernet wire?  :-?


--
==
Felipe Martínez Hermo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
==
Servicios Informáticos
UGT Galicia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
==
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba



Hrm, are you using SACKs or DSACKs or tcp_low_delay in 
/proc/sys/net/somethingOrOther?  They didn't change congestion 
control default in your upstream kernel, did they?  Should be "reno" 
by default.  Doing a netstat -a, do you have many packets queued in 
either direction?  This one is puzzling me.

--
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott. 
Apparently everything is configured the same way in /proc/sys/net 
(both sack & dsack = 1). Regarding the kernel, Old&fast kernel is 
2.6.8 (no /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control) while new&slow 
is 2.6.18-4-686 and congestion control is bic:


[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control
bic

Should I try other congestion control algorithm?

I've made this rudimentary test, and old server is a little bit 
faster, but I don't know if it is meaningful at all.


[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping -i 0.2 fast_server  --- fast_server ping 
statistics ---

2156 packets transmitted, 2156 received, 0% packet loss, time 431208ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.135/0.171/0.245/0.018 ms

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping -i 0.2 slow_server
--- slow_server ping statistics ---
2146 packets transmitted, 2146 received, 0% packet loss, time 429165ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.152/0.179/0.333/0.021 ms


Regards,


try:
echo "reno" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control


That'll make sure the tcp/ip stack isn't messing with the tests by 
doing window scaling and such.  OK, that's one more variable 
isolated... let's see what happens.  Sorry that this is taking to long 
to troubleshoot; I'm an armchair administrator.  Actually I'm a 
software development major in college, but either way, I'm a bit out 
of my element as compared to the professional administrators.


I've tried "reno" on tcp_congestion, but performance is still poor. I 
think I'm giving up and will look for an alternate workaround next week. 
I've spent enough time on this issue.


Anyway, Scott, your help and Sinisa's is very much appreciated.

Greetings from Spain  :-)

Re: [Samba] Aplication slow after migration

[Scott Lovenberg]

Felipe Martinez Hermo wrote:



Scott Lovenberg escribió:



On Feb 6, 2008 4:19 AM, Felipe Martinez Hermo <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:




Sinisa Bandin escribió:
>
>
> Felipe Martinez Hermo wrote:
>>
 OK, so we're apples to apples, so to speak; the servers are 
tuned
 the same.  I'll assume your disks are tuned from hdparm and 
up to
 snuff, otherwise you wouldn't be tuning sockets ;).  Did 
your old

 server have samba settings for oplocks set?


 --
 Peace and Blessings,
 -Scott.

 "Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong"
 -Dennis Miller
>>> Erm, sorry, I didn't catch that you had 2 .conf files there.  
I'm

>>> back to the drawing board.  Sorry about that.  Anyone else
have any
>>> ideas?
>> Yes, that's whats shocking me. Apparently we're apples to apples.
>> Except for the kernel (new&slow 2.6.18-4-686 vs old&fast 2.6.8)
>>
>> I've sniffed both eth0 interfaces and I've got some more
information.
>> When talking to the slow server, the client needs to send 76 "TCP
>> segment of a reassembled PDU" that are not sent when talking 
to the

>> old and fast server.
>>
>> How can I workaround this issue? Should I lower server's MTU?
How much?
>>
>> Thank you
> Do you happen to have a Realtek 8169 based gigabit ethernet in new
> server?
>
> If you do, I had the same problem several times last year, and
solved
> all of them by changing motherboards (all were integrated, and I
like
> them to stay that way because I can achieve full gigabit speed 
with

> several concurent clients)
>
> Best regards,
> Sinisa Bandin
>
>

No, machines are out-of-the-box HP DL servers:
Ethernet controller: Broadcom Corporation NetXtreme BCM5705_2 
Gigabit

Ethernet (rev 03)

I've made a spreadsheet with summarizing wireshark results and
comparing
results for both servers. You can see it here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pnLL2fInqFq2YKuZIphtQdA

It's meaningful that fast server makes 406 Trans2 calls, while slow
server makes 616 calls to perform the same operation. The
difference is
mainly in QUERY_PATH_INFO (200 vs 305) and FIND_FIRST2 (94 vs 199)
calls.

Next try: change ethernet wire?  :-?


--
==
Felipe Martínez Hermo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
==
Servicios Informáticos
UGT Galicia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
==
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba



Hrm, are you using SACKs or DSACKs or tcp_low_delay in 
/proc/sys/net/somethingOrOther?  They didn't change congestion 
control default in your upstream kernel, did they?  Should be "reno" 
by default.  Doing a netstat -a, do you have many packets queued in 
either direction?  This one is puzzling me.

--
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott. 
Apparently everything is configured the same way in /proc/sys/net 
(both sack & dsack = 1). Regarding the kernel, Old&fast kernel is 
2.6.8 (no /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control) while new&slow is 
2.6.18-4-686 and congestion control is bic:


[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control
bic

Should I try other congestion control algorithm?

I've made this rudimentary test, and old server is a little bit 
faster, but I don't know if it is meaningful at all.


[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping -i 0.2 fast_server  --- fast_server ping 
statistics ---

2156 packets transmitted, 2156 received, 0% packet loss, time 431208ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.135/0.171/0.245/0.018 ms

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping -i 0.2 slow_server
--- slow_server ping statistics ---
2146 packets transmitted, 2146 received, 0% packet loss, time 429165ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.152/0.179/0.333/0.021 ms


Regards,


try:
echo "reno" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control


That'll make sure the tcp/ip stack isn't messing with the tests by doing 
window scaling and such.  OK, that's one more variable isolated... let's 
see what happens.  Sorry that this is taking to long to troubleshoot; 
I'm an armchair administrator.  Actually I'm a software development 
major in college, but either way, I'm a bit out of my element as 
compared to the professional administrators.
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: Re: [Samba] Aplication slow after migration

[Felipe Martinez Hermo]

Scott Lovenberg escribió:



On Feb 6, 2008 4:19 AM, Felipe Martinez Hermo <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:




Sinisa Bandin escribió:
>
>
> Felipe Martinez Hermo wrote:
>>
 OK, so we're apples to apples, so to speak; the servers are tuned
 the same.  I'll assume your disks are tuned from hdparm and up to
 snuff, otherwise you wouldn't be tuning sockets ;).  Did your old
 server have samba settings for oplocks set?


 --
 Peace and Blessings,
 -Scott.

 "Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong"
 -Dennis Miller
>>> Erm, sorry, I didn't catch that you had 2 .conf files there.  I'm
>>> back to the drawing board.  Sorry about that.  Anyone else
have any
>>> ideas?
>> Yes, that's whats shocking me. Apparently we're apples to apples.
>> Except for the kernel (new&slow 2.6.18-4-686 vs old&fast 2.6.8)
>>
>> I've sniffed both eth0 interfaces and I've got some more
information.
>> When talking to the slow server, the client needs to send 76 "TCP
>> segment of a reassembled PDU" that are not sent when talking to the
>> old and fast server.
>>
>> How can I workaround this issue? Should I lower server's MTU?
How much?
>>
>> Thank you
> Do you happen to have a Realtek 8169 based gigabit ethernet in new
> server?
>
> If you do, I had the same problem several times last year, and
solved
> all of them by changing motherboards (all were integrated, and I
like
> them to stay that way because I can achieve full gigabit speed with
> several concurent clients)
>
> Best regards,
> Sinisa Bandin
>
>

No, machines are out-of-the-box HP DL servers:
Ethernet controller: Broadcom Corporation NetXtreme BCM5705_2 Gigabit
Ethernet (rev 03)

I've made a spreadsheet with summarizing wireshark results and
comparing
results for both servers. You can see it here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pnLL2fInqFq2YKuZIphtQdA

It's meaningful that fast server makes 406 Trans2 calls, while slow
server makes 616 calls to perform the same operation. The
difference is
mainly in QUERY_PATH_INFO (200 vs 305) and FIND_FIRST2 (94 vs 199)
calls.

Next try: change ethernet wire?  :-?


--
==
Felipe Martínez Hermo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
==
Servicios Informáticos
UGT Galicia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
==
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba



Hrm, are you using SACKs or DSACKs or tcp_low_delay in 
/proc/sys/net/somethingOrOther?  They didn't change congestion control 
default in your upstream kernel, did they?  Should be "reno" by 
default.  Doing a netstat -a, do you have many packets queued in 
either direction?  This one is puzzling me. 


--
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott. 
Apparently everything is configured the same way in /proc/sys/net (both 
sack & dsack = 1). Regarding the kernel, Old&fast kernel is 2.6.8 (no 
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control) while new&slow is 
2.6.18-4-686 and congestion control is bic:


[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control
bic

Should I try other congestion control algorithm?

I've made this rudimentary test, and old server is a little bit faster, 
but I don't know if it is meaningful at all.


[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping -i 0.2 fast_server  
--- fast_server ping statistics ---

2156 packets transmitted, 2156 received, 0% packet loss, time 431208ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.135/0.171/0.245/0.018 ms

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping -i 0.2 slow_server
--- slow_server ping statistics ---
2146 packets transmitted, 2146 received, 0% packet loss, time 429165ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.152/0.179/0.333/0.021 ms


Regards,

--
==
Felipe Martínez Hermo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==
Servicios Informáticos
UGT Galicia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
== 


--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Aplication slow after migration

[Scott Lovenberg]

On Feb 6, 2008 4:19 AM, Felipe Martinez Hermo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
>
> Sinisa Bandin escribió:
> >
> >
> > Felipe Martinez Hermo wrote:
> >>
>  OK, so we're apples to apples, so to speak; the servers are tuned
>  the same.  I'll assume your disks are tuned from hdparm and up to
>  snuff, otherwise you wouldn't be tuning sockets ;).  Did your old
>  server have samba settings for oplocks set?
> 
> 
>  --
>  Peace and Blessings,
>  -Scott.
> 
>  "Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong"
>  -Dennis Miller
> >>> Erm, sorry, I didn't catch that you had 2 .conf files there.  I'm
> >>> back to the drawing board.  Sorry about that.  Anyone else have any
> >>> ideas?
> >> Yes, that's whats shocking me. Apparently we're apples to apples.
> >> Except for the kernel (new&slow 2.6.18-4-686 vs old&fast 2.6.8)
> >>
> >> I've sniffed both eth0 interfaces and I've got some more information.
> >> When talking to the slow server, the client needs to send 76 "TCP
> >> segment of a reassembled PDU" that are not sent when talking to the
> >> old and fast server.
> >>
> >> How can I workaround this issue? Should I lower server's MTU? How much?
> >>
> >> Thank you
> > Do you happen to have a Realtek 8169 based gigabit ethernet in new
> > server?
> >
> > If you do, I had the same problem several times last year, and solved
> > all of them by changing motherboards (all were integrated, and I like
> > them to stay that way because I can achieve full gigabit speed with
> > several concurent clients)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Sinisa Bandin
> >
> >
>
> No, machines are out-of-the-box HP DL servers:
> Ethernet controller: Broadcom Corporation NetXtreme BCM5705_2 Gigabit
> Ethernet (rev 03)
>
> I've made a spreadsheet with summarizing wireshark results and comparing
> results for both servers. You can see it here:
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pnLL2fInqFq2YKuZIphtQdA
>
> It's meaningful that fast server makes 406 Trans2 calls, while slow
> server makes 616 calls to perform the same operation. The difference is
> mainly in QUERY_PATH_INFO (200 vs 305) and FIND_FIRST2 (94 vs 199) calls.
>
> Next try: change ethernet wire?  :-?
>
>
> --
> ==
> Felipe Martínez Hermo
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ==
> Servicios Informáticos
> UGT Galicia
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ==
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
>


Hrm, are you using SACKs or DSACKs or tcp_low_delay in
/proc/sys/net/somethingOrOther?  They didn't change congestion control
default in your upstream kernel, did they?  Should be "reno" by default.
Doing a netstat -a, do you have many packets queued in either direction?
This one is puzzling me.

-- 
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott.
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Aplication slow after migration

[Felipe Martinez Hermo]

Sinisa Bandin escribió:



Felipe Martinez Hermo wrote:


OK, so we're apples to apples, so to speak; the servers are tuned 
the same.  I'll assume your disks are tuned from hdparm and up to 
snuff, otherwise you wouldn't be tuning sockets ;).  Did your old 
server have samba settings for oplocks set?



--
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott.

"Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong"
-Dennis Miller 
Erm, sorry, I didn't catch that you had 2 .conf files there.  I'm 
back to the drawing board.  Sorry about that.  Anyone else have any 
ideas?
Yes, that's whats shocking me. Apparently we're apples to apples. 
Except for the kernel (new&slow 2.6.18-4-686 vs old&fast 2.6.8)


I've sniffed both eth0 interfaces and I've got some more information. 
When talking to the slow server, the client needs to send 76 "TCP 
segment of a reassembled PDU" that are not sent when talking to the 
old and fast server.


How can I workaround this issue? Should I lower server's MTU? How much?

Thank you
Do you happen to have a Realtek 8169 based gigabit ethernet in new 
server?


If you do, I had the same problem several times last year, and solved 
all of them by changing motherboards (all were integrated, and I like 
them to stay that way because I can achieve full gigabit speed with 
several concurent clients)


Best regards,
Sinisa Bandin




No, machines are out-of-the-box HP DL servers:
Ethernet controller: Broadcom Corporation NetXtreme BCM5705_2 Gigabit 
Ethernet (rev 03)


I've made a spreadsheet with summarizing wireshark results and comparing 
results for both servers. You can see it here: 
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pnLL2fInqFq2YKuZIphtQdA


It's meaningful that fast server makes 406 Trans2 calls, while slow 
server makes 616 calls to perform the same operation. The difference is 
mainly in QUERY_PATH_INFO (200 vs 305) and FIND_FIRST2 (94 vs 199) calls.


Next try: change ethernet wire?  :-?


--
==
Felipe Martínez Hermo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==
Servicios Informáticos
UGT Galicia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
== 
--

To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Aplication slow after migration

[Sinisa Bandin]

Felipe Martinez Hermo wrote:


OK, so we're apples to apples, so to speak; the servers are tuned 
the same.  I'll assume your disks are tuned from hdparm and up to 
snuff, otherwise you wouldn't be tuning sockets ;).  Did your old 
server have samba settings for oplocks set?



--
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott.

"Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong"
-Dennis Miller 
Erm, sorry, I didn't catch that you had 2 .conf files there.  I'm 
back to the drawing board.  Sorry about that.  Anyone else have any 
ideas?
Yes, that's whats shocking me. Apparently we're apples to apples. 
Except for the kernel (new&slow 2.6.18-4-686 vs old&fast 2.6.8)


I've sniffed both eth0 interfaces and I've got some more information. 
When talking to the slow server, the client needs to send 76 "TCP 
segment of a reassembled PDU" that are not sent when talking to the 
old and fast server.


How can I workaround this issue? Should I lower server's MTU? How much?

Thank you



Do you happen to have a Realtek 8169 based gigabit ethernet in new server?

If you do, I had the same problem several times last year, and solved
all of them by changing motherboards (all were integrated, and I like
them to stay that way because I can achieve full gigabit speed with
several concurent clients)

Best regards,
Sinisa Bandin


-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Aplication slow after migration

[Felipe Martinez Hermo]

OK, so we're apples to apples, so to speak; the servers are tuned the 
same.  I'll assume your disks are tuned from hdparm and up to snuff, 
otherwise you wouldn't be tuning sockets ;).  Did your old server 
have samba settings for oplocks set?



--
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott.

"Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong"
-Dennis Miller 
Erm, sorry, I didn't catch that you had 2 .conf files there.  I'm back 
to the drawing board.  Sorry about that.  Anyone else have any ideas?
Yes, that's whats shocking me. Apparently we're apples to apples. Except 
for the kernel (new&slow 2.6.18-4-686 vs old&fast 2.6.8)


I've sniffed both eth0 interfaces and I've got some more information. 
When talking to the slow server, the client needs to send 76 "TCP 
segment of a reassembled PDU" that are not sent when talking to the old 
and fast server.


How can I workaround this issue? Should I lower server's MTU? How much?

Thank you




--
==
Felipe Martínez Hermo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==
Servicios Informáticos
UGT Galicia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
== 


--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Aplication slow after migration

[Scott Lovenberg]

Scott Lovenberg wrote:



On Feb 1, 2008 7:38 AM, Felipe Martinez Hermo <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


I've got vfs_cache_pressure = 100 on both servers and ext3 filesystems
on both.
These are the files on /proc/sys/vm:

slow server:

file
   value
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 block_dump
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 dirty_background_ratio
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 dirty_expire_centisecs
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 dirty_ratio
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 dirty_writeback_centisecs
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 drop_caches
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 laptop_mode
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 legacy_va_layout
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 lowmem_reserve_ratio
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 max_map_count
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 min_free_kbytes
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 nr_pdflush_threads
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 overcommit_memory
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 overcommit_ratio
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 page-cluster
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 panic_on_oom
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 percpu_pagelist_fraction
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 swappiness
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 swap_token_timeout
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 vdso_enabled
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 vfs_cache_pressure0
10
3000
40
500
0
0
0
256 256 32
65536
3831
2
0
50
3
0
0
60
300
1
100



Fast server:

file
   value
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 block_dump
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 dirty_background_ratio
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 dirty_expire_centisecs
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 dirty_ratio
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 dirty_writeback_centisecs
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 laptop_mode
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 lower_zone_protection
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 max_map_count
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 min_free_kbytes
-r--r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 nr_pdflush_threads
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 overcommit_memory
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 overcommit_ratio
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 page-cluster
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 swappiness
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 vfs_cache_pressure  0
10
3000
40
500
0
0
65536
957
2
0
50
3
60
100





Scott Lovenberg escribió:
> Felipe Martinez Hermo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi, everybody!
>>
>> I have been using samab on Debian for years and I have recently
>> migrated my file server from version 3.0.14a-3sarge2 to
3.0.24-6etch4.
>> One or our applications stores its data in a shared folder.
This data
>> is distributed in over 29000 files of about 1k-40k and is so much
>> slower when it runs on the new server.
>>
>> I have thoroughly revised both smb.conf files, but can't see
>> significant differences. I have read them so much that probably I'm
>> already obfuscated.
>>
>> I have tuned socket options, but can't see any improvement.
>> Any ideas?
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
> how are your settings in /proc/sys/vm/*?  If you've got the RAM,
turn
> down the vfs_cache_pressure - you should get more hits.  Also, what
> file system are you using?

--
==
Felipe Martínez Hermo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
==
Servicios Informáticos
UGT Galicia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
==
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

OK, so we're apples to apples, so to speak; the servers are tuned the 
same.  I'll assume your disks are tuned from hdparm and up to snuff, 
otherwise you wouldn't be tuning sockets ;).  Did your old server have 
samba settings for oplocks set?



--
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott.

"Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong"
-Dennis Miller 
Erm, sorry, I didn't catch that you had 2 .conf files there.  I'm back 
to the drawing board.  Sorry about that.  Anyone else have any ideas?

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
inst

Re: [Samba] Aplication slow after migration

[Scott Lovenberg]

On Feb 1, 2008 7:38 AM, Felipe Martinez Hermo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> I've got vfs_cache_pressure = 100 on both servers and ext3 filesystems
> on both.
> These are the files on /proc/sys/vm:
>
> slow server:
> 
> file
>value
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 block_dump
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 dirty_background_ratio
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 dirty_expire_centisecs
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 dirty_ratio
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 dirty_writeback_centisecs
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 drop_caches
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 laptop_mode
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 legacy_va_layout
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 lowmem_reserve_ratio
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 max_map_count
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 min_free_kbytes
> -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 nr_pdflush_threads
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 overcommit_memory
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 overcommit_ratio
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 page-cluster
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 panic_on_oom
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 percpu_pagelist_fraction
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 swappiness
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 swap_token_timeout
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 vdso_enabled
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 vfs_cache_pressure0
> 10
> 3000
> 40
> 500
> 0
> 0
> 0
> 256 256 32
> 65536
> 3831
> 2
> 0
> 50
> 3
> 0
> 0
> 60
> 300
> 1
> 100
>
>
>
> Fast server:
> 
> file
>value
> -rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 block_dump
> -rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 dirty_background_ratio
> -rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 dirty_expire_centisecs
> -rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 dirty_ratio
> -rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 dirty_writeback_centisecs
> -rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 laptop_mode
> -rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 lower_zone_protection
> -rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 max_map_count
> -rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 min_free_kbytes
> -r--r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 nr_pdflush_threads
> -rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 overcommit_memory
> -rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 overcommit_ratio
> -rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 page-cluster
> -rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 swappiness
> -rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 vfs_cache_pressure  0
> 10
> 3000
> 40
> 500
> 0
> 0
> 65536
> 957
> 2
> 0
> 50
> 3
> 60
> 100
>
>
>
>
>
> Scott Lovenberg escribió:
> > Felipe Martinez Hermo wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi, everybody!
> >>
> >> I have been using samab on Debian for years and I have recently
> >> migrated my file server from version 3.0.14a-3sarge2 to 3.0.24-6etch4.
> >> One or our applications stores its data in a shared folder. This data
> >> is distributed in over 29000 files of about 1k-40k and is so much
> >> slower when it runs on the new server.
> >>
> >> I have thoroughly revised both smb.conf files, but can't see
> >> significant differences. I have read them so much that probably I'm
> >> already obfuscated.
> >>
> >> I have tuned socket options, but can't see any improvement.
> >> Any ideas?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance
> >>
> > how are your settings in /proc/sys/vm/*?  If you've got the RAM, turn
> > down the vfs_cache_pressure - you should get more hits.  Also, what
> > file system are you using?
>
> --
> ==
> Felipe Martínez Hermo
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ==
> Servicios Informáticos
> UGT Galicia
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ==
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
>
OK, so we're apples to apples, so to speak; the servers are tuned the same.
I'll assume your disks are tuned from hdparm and up to snuff, otherwise you
wouldn't be tuning sockets ;).  Did your old server have samba settings for
oplocks set?


-- 
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott.

"Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong"
-Dennis Miller
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Aplication slow after migration

[Felipe Martinez Hermo]

I've got vfs_cache_pressure = 100 on both servers and ext3 filesystems 
on both.

These are the files on /proc/sys/vm:

slow server:

file
value
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 block_dump
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 dirty_background_ratio
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 dirty_expire_centisecs
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 dirty_ratio
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 dirty_writeback_centisecs
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 drop_caches
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 laptop_mode
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 legacy_va_layout
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 lowmem_reserve_ratio
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 max_map_count
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 min_free_kbytes
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 nr_pdflush_threads
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 overcommit_memory
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 overcommit_ratio
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 page-cluster
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 panic_on_oom
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 percpu_pagelist_fraction
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 swappiness
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 swap_token_timeout
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 vdso_enabled
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:31 vfs_cache_pressure0
10
3000
40
500
0
0
0
256 256 32
65536
3831
2
0
50
3
0
0
60
300
1
100



Fast server:

file
value
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 block_dump
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 dirty_background_ratio
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 dirty_expire_centisecs
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 dirty_ratio
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 dirty_writeback_centisecs
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 laptop_mode
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 lower_zone_protection
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 max_map_count
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 min_free_kbytes
-r--r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 nr_pdflush_threads
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 overcommit_memory
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 overcommit_ratio
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 page-cluster
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 swappiness
-rw-r--r--   1 root root 0 2008-02-01 13:32 vfs_cache_pressure  0
10
3000
40
500
0
0
65536
957
2
0
50
3
60
100





Scott Lovenberg escribió:

Felipe Martinez Hermo wrote:




   Hi, everybody!

I have been using samab on Debian for years and I have recently 
migrated my file server from version 3.0.14a-3sarge2 to 3.0.24-6etch4.
One or our applications stores its data in a shared folder. This data 
is distributed in over 29000 files of about 1k-40k and is so much 
slower when it runs on the new server.


I have thoroughly revised both smb.conf files, but can't see 
significant differences. I have read them so much that probably I'm 
already obfuscated.


I have tuned socket options, but can't see any improvement.
Any ideas?

Thanks in advance

how are your settings in /proc/sys/vm/*?  If you've got the RAM, turn 
down the vfs_cache_pressure - you should get more hits.  Also, what 
file system are you using?


--
==
Felipe Martínez Hermo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==
Servicios Informáticos
UGT Galicia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
== 
--

To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Aplication slow after migration

[Scott Lovenberg]

Felipe Martinez Hermo wrote:




   Hi, everybody!

I have been using samab on Debian for years and I have recently 
migrated my file server from version 3.0.14a-3sarge2 to 3.0.24-6etch4.
One or our applications stores its data in a shared folder. This data 
is distributed in over 29000 files of about 1k-40k and is so much 
slower when it runs on the new server.


I have thoroughly revised both smb.conf files, but can't see 
significant differences. I have read them so much that probably I'm 
already obfuscated.


I have tuned socket options, but can't see any improvement.
Any ideas?

Thanks in advance

how are your settings in /proc/sys/vm/*?  If you've got the RAM, turn 
down the vfs_cache_pressure - you should get more hits.  Also, what file 
system are you using?
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

[Samba] Aplication slow after migration

[Felipe Martinez Hermo]

   Hi, everybody!

I have been using samab on Debian for years and I have recently migrated 
my file server from version 3.0.14a-3sarge2 to 3.0.24-6etch4.
One or our applications stores its data in a shared folder. This data is 
distributed in over 29000 files of about 1k-40k and is so much slower 
when it runs on the new server.


I have thoroughly revised both smb.conf files, but can't see significant 
differences. I have read them so much that probably I'm already obfuscated.


I have tuned socket options, but can't see any improvement.
Any ideas?

Thanks in advance

--
==
Felipe Martínez Hermo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==
Servicios Informáticos
UGT Galicia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
== 




New server max. Version 3.0.24-6etch4. 	Old server clarence. Version 
3.0.14a-3sarge2

WARNING: You have some share names that are longer than 12 characters.
These may not be accessible to some older clients.
(Eg. Windows9x, WindowsMe, and smbclient prior to Samba 3.0.)
Server role: ROLE_DOMAIN_PDC
Loaded services file OK.
# Global parameters
[global]
   workgroup = UGTGALICIA
   server string = Max. Servidor de disco de UGT Galicia
   obey pam restrictions = Yes
   passdb backend = tdbsam
   pam password change = Yes
   passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u
   passwd chat = *Enter\snew\sUNIX\spassword:* %n\n 
*Retype\snew\sUNIX\spassword:* %n\n *password\supdated\ssuccessfully* .

   unix password sync = Yes
   log level = 0 auth:2
   syslog = 0
   log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
   max log size = 1000
   time server = Yes
   deadtime = 15
   fam change notify = No
   max disk size = 5000
   socket options = IPTOS_LOWDELAY TCP_NODELAY SO_SNDBUF=4096 
SO_RCVBUF=4096
   add machine script = /usr/sbin/useradd -s /bin/false -d 
/var/lib/nobody %u

   logon script = scripts/%U.bat
   logon path = \\%h\profiles\%U
   logon drive = z:
   domain logons = Yes
   os level = 65
   preferred master = Yes
   domain master = Yes
   dns proxy = No
   ldap ssl = no
   utmp = Yes
   panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d
   invalid users = root
   create mask = 0700
   force create mode = 0700
   directory mask = 0700
   force directory mode = 0700
   hosts allow = 172.15.1., 127.0.0.1
   printing = cups
   print command =
   lpq command = %p
   lprm command =

[homes]
   comment = Carpetas de Usuarios
   path = /home/%u
   valid users = %S
   read only = No
   browseable = No



[informatica]
   comment = Servicios Informaticos
   path = /home/informatica
   valid users = @informatica
   force group = informatica
   read only = No
   create mask = 0770
   force create mode = 0770
   security mask = 0770
   directory mask = 0770
   force directory mode = 0770
   directory security mask = 0770



Loaded services file OK.
# Global parameters
[global]
   workgroup = GALICIA
   server string = %h server (Samba %v)
   passdb backend = tdbsam, guest
   log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
   max log size = 1000
   socket options = IPTOS_LOWDELAY TCP_NODELAY SO_SNDBUF=4096 
SO_RCVBUF=4096

   printcap name = cups
   domain logons = Yes
   os level = 64
   preferred master = Yes
   domain master = Yes
   dns proxy = No
   wins support = Yes
   ldap ssl = no
   panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d
   hosts allow = 172.15.1., 127.
   printing = cups
   print command =
   lpq command =
   lprm command =

[homes]
   comment = Home Directories
   invalid users = root
   read only = No
   create mask = 0700
   directory mask = 0700
   force directory mode = 0700
   browseable = No


[informatica]
   comment = Servicios Informaticos
   path = /home/informatica
   force group = informatica
   read only = No
   create mask = 0770
   force create mode = 0770
   force security mode = 0770
   force directory mode = 0770
   directory security mask = 0770
   force directory security mode = 0770



--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba