Re: [Samba] Is there a maximum number of shares samba can serve?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:40:49PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: Volker == Volker Lendecke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Volker On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:03:24PM +0100, Marcello Romani Volker wrote: I am being asked to determine the feasibility of serving hundreds (300-400) of directories as individual shares instead of sharing a single parent directory. Volker There is no limit in the number of shares Samba can serve. Volker If you list them all in smb.conf, you will however see Volker increased memory usage, because all share definitions are Volker loaded individually in all smbd processes. A single share Volker definition takes around 3k (we're working on reducing Volker that). So multiply the number of shares defined with the Volker number of concurrent clients and you might see some memory Volker footprint. Thanks, but I don't think it is going to meet my needs. I see no way to define 'hosts allow' or 'valid users' for a user share. I know I could use a template but that wouldn't allow me to change it for different shares. It was a little tricky defining the shares. Apparently, you can't define an ACL without a comment and defining the ACL didn't work as I expected. net usershare add archive /localdisk/software/archive test 'AMERICASE\boehm:F,AMERICASE\julieb:R' net usershare info [archive] path=/localdisk/software/archive comment=test usershare_acl=Unix User\boehm:F,Unix User\julieb:R guest_ok=n I wasn't expecting 'Unix User\boehm'. Looking at net_usershare.c, it looks like I am expected to provide an SID for the user. I don't normally run winbindd. I guess I will just have to live with the overhead. What would happen if I created the usershare data file manually instead of using the 'net usershare add' command? For example, adding 'hosts allow' or 'valid users' to the file created by the 'net usershare add' command? Volker So if you want to go REALLY large, in the order of Volker thousands, you might want to look at the user shares. If Volker the configuration options you can set in the user shares Volker are sufficient for your needs, then these are much more Volker memory-efficient because the definitions are only loaded Volker in smbd on demand. -- Eric M. Boehm /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML or RTF in mail X No proprietary word-processing Respect Open Standards / \ files in mail -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Is there a maximum number of shares samba can serve?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 08:48:44AM -0400, Eric Boehm wrote: What would happen if I created the usershare data file manually instead of using the 'net usershare add' command? For example, adding 'hosts allow' or 'valid users' to the file created by the 'net usershare add' command? No, there's no way to have hosts allow in the usershare definitions. Valid users should be possible. If you have local users, you can use S-1-22-1-uid or S-1-22-2-gid. Volker pgpiRHHFJ1ilR.pgp Description: PGP signature -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Is there a maximum number of shares samba can serve?
I am being asked to determine the feasibility of serving hundreds (300-400) of directories as individual shares instead of sharing a single parent directory. Personally, I don't think this is a good idea. Clients will go from having a single connection to a single share to 50-300 connections to multiple shares. That can't be good for performance or load. I've searched the mailing list, the web, the documentation, the wiki and the source code. I haven't been able to determine the maximum, if any. Of course, I may have missed it. Feel free to point me to the correct documentation or source file. I've seen some references that you can't have either more than 145 or 165 shares per samba server. However, if there is anyone running such a large number of shares and has advice, I am happy to listen. -- Eric M. Boehm /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML or RTF in mail X No proprietary word-processing Respect Open Standards / \ files in mail -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Is there a maximum number of shares samba can serve?
Eric Boehm ha scritto: I am being asked to determine the feasibility of serving hundreds (300-400) of directories as individual shares instead of sharing a single parent directory. Personally, I don't think this is a good idea. Clients will go from having a single connection to a single share to 50-300 connections to multiple shares. That can't be good for performance or load. I've searched the mailing list, the web, the documentation, the wiki and the source code. I haven't been able to determine the maximum, if any. Of course, I may have missed it. Feel free to point me to the correct documentation or source file. I've seen some references that you can't have either more than 145 or 165 shares per samba server. However, if there is anyone running such a large number of shares and has advice, I am happy to listen. Hi, I found some docs about this smb.conf parameter: usershare max shares which specifies the maximum number of shares that the samba admin will allow non-root users to create via the command net usershare add ( read for example http://us1.samba.org/samba/docs/man/manpages-3/net.8.html ) The example value given in the docs for the usershare max shares parameter is 100, which makes me think that a samba server should cope with a number of shares in the hundreds. I know it's not much, but I HTH nonetheless. -- Marcello Romani Responsabile IT Ottotecnica s.r.l. http://www.ottotecnica.com -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Is there a maximum number of shares samba can serve?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:03:24PM +0100, Marcello Romani wrote: Marcello == Marcello Romani [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marcello Eric Boehm ha scritto: I am being asked to determine the feasibility of serving hundreds (300-400) of directories as individual shares instead of sharing a single parent directory. Marcello Hi, I found some docs about this smb.conf parameter: Marcello usershare max shares Marcello which specifies the maximum number of shares that the Marcello samba admin will allow non-root users to create via the Marcello command Marcello net usershare add Marcello ( read for example Marcello http://us1.samba.org/samba/docs/man/manpages-3/net.8.html Marcello ) Yes, I saw that but it wasn't much comfort. We don't have users creating shares in our environment but I understand your reasoning. I have a suspicion that the limit was set to a large value on the premise it would be unlikely that users would ever create that many shares. Marcello The example value given in the docs for the usershare Marcello max shares parameter is 100, which makes me think that a Marcello samba server should cope with a number of shares in the Marcello hundreds. Marcello I know it's not much, but I HTH nonetheless. My primary concern is the the number of clients connections would increase dramatically. If I have 50 clients with one connection (one share) now, that's 50 connections. This could increase to 300*50 connections. Granted, not every client will be active on every share at the same time but I could easily see that I could go from 1 to 10 connections per client. I am interested in knowing or at least estimating how Samba might perform under these conditions. -- Eric M. Boehm /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML or RTF in mail X No proprietary word-processing Respect Open Standards / \ files in mail -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Is there a maximum number of shares samba can serve?
On 3/13/2008, Eric Boehm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If I have 50 clients with one connection (one share) now, that's 50 connections. This could increase to 300*50 connections. Granted, not every client will be active on every share at the same time but I could easily see that I could go from 1 to 10 connections per client. I am interested in knowing or at least estimating how Samba might perform under these conditions. It might be better if you define the problem and/or goal first... *Why* dod you need 300+ shares? Maybe there's a better way to do it? For example, you could define one (or a few) shares, then using a combination of permissions and the 'hide unreadable' setting, users will only see the folders that they have access rights to... -- Best regards, Charles -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Is there a maximum number of shares samba can serve?
I currently have a server with 1,885 shares. It is running Samba version 3.0.20b-3.11-SUSE Gary R. Webster Eric Boehm [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/13/2008 08:23 AM Please respond to Eric Boehm [EMAIL PROTECTED] To samba@lists.samba.org cc Subject [Samba] Is there a maximum number of shares samba can serve? I am being asked to determine the feasibility of serving hundreds (300-400) of directories as individual shares instead of sharing a single parent directory. Personally, I don't think this is a good idea. Clients will go from having a single connection to a single share to 50-300 connections to multiple shares. That can't be good for performance or load. I've searched the mailing list, the web, the documentation, the wiki and the source code. I haven't been able to determine the maximum, if any. Of course, I may have missed it. Feel free to point me to the correct documentation or source file. I've seen some references that you can't have either more than 145 or 165 shares per samba server. However, if there is anyone running such a large number of shares and has advice, I am happy to listen. -- Eric M. Boehm /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML or RTF in mail X No proprietary word-processing Respect Open Standards / \ files in mail -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Is there a maximum number of shares samba can serve?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:56:47AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote: Charles == Charles Marcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Charles On 3/13/2008, Eric Boehm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If I have 50 clients with one connection (one share) now, that's 50 connections. This could increase to 300*50 connections. Granted, not every client will be active on every share at the same time but I could easily see that I could go from 1 to 10 connections per client. I am interested in knowing or at least estimating how Samba might perform under these conditions. Charles It might be better if you define the problem and/or goal Charles first... Charles *Why* dod you need 300+ shares? Maybe there's a better Charles way to do it? For example, you could define one (or a Charles few) shares, then using a combination of permissions and Charles the 'hide unreadable' setting, users will only see the Charles folders that they have access rights to... We currently use Samba as an Interop environment for IBM/Rational ClearCase. The desire is control access to each ClearCase VOB individually. There are anywhere from 100-400 VOBs on each server. Normal UNIX permissions of owner, group and world are insufficient. In addition, there is a need to restrict access by hostname as well as user. I don't think permissions and hide unreadable will help with access by hostname. We have a concurrent problem with restricting NFS access relating to how large the export file can be and how many NFS mounts a client can make. It is likely that we will have to back off to the level of filesystems or higher in the directory tree. For example, we have /export/vobstore/disk1/proj1/VOBa /export/vobstore/disk1/proj1/VOBb /export/vobstore/disk1/proj2/VOBc /export/vobstore/disk1/proj1/VOBd /export/vobstore/disk2/proj2/VOBe /export/vobstore/disk2/proj1/VOBf /export/vobstore/disk3/proj2/VOBg /export/vobstore/disk3/proj1/VOBh The current method is to define the share [export] path = /export One proposal is to use [VOBa] path = /export/vobstore/disk1/proj1/VOBa [VOBb] path = /export/vobstore/disk1/proj1/VOBb etc. This is not going to work for NFS so we may back off to [disk1] path = /export/vobstore/disk1 [disk2] path = /export/vobstore/disk2 etc. -- Eric M. Boehm /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML or RTF in mail X No proprietary word-processing Respect Open Standards / \ files in mail -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Is there a maximum number of shares samba can serve?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:03:24PM +0100, Marcello Romani wrote: I am being asked to determine the feasibility of serving hundreds (300-400) of directories as individual shares instead of sharing a single parent directory. There is no limit in the number of shares Samba can serve. If you list them all in smb.conf, you will however see increased memory usage, because all share definitions are loaded individually in all smbd processes. A single share definition takes around 3k (we're working on reducing that). So multiply the number of shares defined with the number of concurrent clients and you might see some memory footprint. So if you want to go REALLY large, in the order of thousands, you might want to look at the user shares. If the configuration options you can set in the user shares are sufficient for your needs, then these are much more memory-efficient because the definitions are only loaded in smbd on demand. Volker pgpKTatZ3fP1Q.pgp Description: PGP signature -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
