: "Doug Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Performance: Samba 3 vs. Windows 2003
> I have been noticing similar results with my server. The Samba machine is
> a dual processor Xeon with 1 gig
PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Samba Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 3:30 PM
> >Subject: [Samba] Performance: Samba 3 vs. Windows 2003
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Samba guru's:
> >>
> >>Our Sa
Hi,
Although I use this with Samba 2.2.7, it should apply to 3 (I
will find out soon enough :). I found this to be a good
setup. I've;
sys setup-
gbit (non jubmo)
8 port 3ware raid card
sw raid on xfs 2.4.20-20.9 (log v2 and s size = 4096)
samba setup-
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=
revich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Samba Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 3:30 PM
Subject: [Samba] Performance: Samba 3 vs. Windows 2003
Samba guru's:
Our Samba 3 network performance is half that of Windows 2003 Server. I
really want to
own a fair bit as well.
- Original Message -
From: "Alexander Lazarevich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Samba Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 3:30 PM
Subject: [Samba] Performance: Samba 3 vs. Windows 2003
> Samba guru's:
&
Hi,
just as a reference, setup an FTP or HTTP server along the Linux and check
the speed there to see wether it is an Linux OS or a Samba problem.
Schlomo
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Alexander Lazarevich wrote:
> Samba guru's:
>
> Our Samba 3 network performance is half that of Windows 2003 Server.
Samba guru's:
Our Samba 3 network performance is half that of Windows 2003 Server. I
really want to stay with samba/unix, but half the performance? I'm hoping
someone can point me in the right direction so we can keep using
samba/unix. I'll try to give as much detail without giving pages and
p
