just toss it on a PC with FreeBSD.
Well they finally got tired of hearing FreeBSD this and FreeBSD that and
asked me to bring a box in if I was so confident... tomorrow morning at
9am. So, I'm building a new box tonight and was wondering if anybody
has any tried and true tuning parameters
Chad David wrote:
So, I'm building a new box tonight and was wondering if anybody
has any tried and true tuning parameters for samba on -stable.
Since you never got any actual answers to your question, I offer the
following. The only samba tuning option I've ever seen make a difference
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Doug Barton wrote:
Chad David wrote:
So, I'm building a new box tonight and was wondering if anybody
has any tried and true tuning parameters for samba on -stable.
Since you never got any actual answers to your question, I offer the
following. The only samba
this and FreeBSD that and
asked me to bring a box in if I was so confident... tomorrow morning at
9am. So, I'm building a new box tonight and was wondering if anybody
has any tried and true tuning parameters for samba on -stable. They
currently have ~700 users attached. The load per user is pretty
they finally got tired of hearing FreeBSD this and FreeBSD that and
asked me to bring a box in if I was so confident... tomorrow morning at
9am. So, I'm building a new box tonight and was wondering if anybody
has any tried and true tuning parameters for samba on -stable. They
currently
Richard Sharpe wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Samba uses a seperate process for each connection, and Windows opens
one connection per share.
Yes to the first claim, no to the second. Most definitely not. For a
single client, windows puts all share access (net use,
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Richard Sharpe wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Samba uses a seperate process for each connection, and Windows opens
one connection per share.
Yes to the first claim, no to the second. Most definitely not. For a
single
Richard Sharpe wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Richard Sharpe wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Samba uses a seperate process for each connection, and Windows opens
one connection per share.
Yes to the first claim, no to the second. Most
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 12:33:30AM -0700, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Richard Sharpe wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Richard Sharpe wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
...
Even with just one connection per machine, though, you're still going
to
me to bring a box in if I was so confident... tomorrow morning at
9am. So, I'm building a new box tonight and was wondering if anybody
has any tried and true tuning parameters for samba on -stable. They
currently have ~700 users attached. The load per user is pretty low
but just rebooting
of hearing FreeBSD this and FreeBSD that and
asked me to bring a box in if I was so confident... tomorrow morning at
9am. So, I'm building a new box tonight and was wondering if anybody
has any tried and true tuning parameters for samba on -stable. They
currently have ~700 users attached
of hearing FreeBSD this and FreeBSD that and
asked me to bring a box in if I was so confident... tomorrow morning at
9am. So, I'm building a new box tonight and was wondering if anybody
has any tried and true tuning parameters for samba on -stable. They
currently have ~700 users attached
of hearing FreeBSD this and FreeBSD that and
asked me to bring a box in if I was so confident... tomorrow morning at
9am. So, I'm building a new box tonight and was wondering if anybody
has any tried and true tuning parameters for samba on -stable. They
currently have ~700 users attached. The load
should just toss it on a PC with FreeBSD.
Well they finally got tired of hearing FreeBSD this and FreeBSD that and
asked me to bring a box in if I was so confident... tomorrow morning at
9am. So, I'm building a new box tonight and was wondering if anybody
has any tried and true tuning
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 11:20:51AM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote:
Certainly, a 2GB machine that I regularly test against does not notice the
smbds start up all that much.
I have no real way of testing this type of load here, but first thing tomorrow
morning I'll know..
As a side note,
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Chad David wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 11:20:51AM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote:
Certainly, a 2GB machine that I regularly test against does not notice the
smbds start up all that much.
I have no real way of testing this type of load here, but first thing
On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 10:14, Chad David wrote:
This is my biggest concern. I just don't know what to tune here since
the data just basically passes straight through the box, and the with
about of data being served and the access patterns buffering is pointless.
I disagree.. Buffering is
In the last episode (Jul 10), Chad David said:
As a side note, the data being served will be attached to the samba server
via NFS.
Wouldn't it be better to run samba directly on the server that's
providing the data? Why force it over the network twice?
--
Dan Nelson
[EMAIL
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 09:36:10PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Jul 10), Chad David said:
As a side note, the data being served will be attached to the samba server
via NFS.
Wouldn't it be better to run samba directly on the server that's
providing the data?
They have a
19 matches
Mail list logo
