Hello,
since a few days the computer in a branch office the computer take five
and more minutes to load the user profile.
In the user's samba log I found many lines of the type:
[2011/08/17 12:36:09, 0] smbd/service.c:1188(make_connection)
tonon-pc11 (:::192.168.10.11) couldn't find s
-
From: "Robert Adkins II"
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 10:10 AM
To: "'vg_ us'" ;
Cc:
Subject: RE: [Samba] Very slow samba performance on Centos 6
Wouldn't it be better to rerun these tests, not from the Ramd
f.
--
Regards,
Robert Adkins II
> -Original Message-
> From: samba-boun...@lists.samba.org
> [mailto:samba-boun...@lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of vg_ us
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:12 PM
> To: volker.lende...@sernet.de
> Cc: samba@lists.samba.org
>
Hi, Jeff!
Something for you to reply to ... :-)
Volker
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 02:11:35PM -0400, vg_ us wrote:
> --
> From: "Volker Lendecke"
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 11:01 AM
> To: "vg_ us"
> Cc:
>
On 8/4/2011 1:11 PM, vg_ us wrote:
> cifsfs mounts are really slow, so what happens when linux, windows and
> mac clients map/mount the share? Are they gonna be this slow? Any way to
> speed it up?
Unfortunately I don't have an answer to the slow mounts issue. However,
you're showing a peak perf
--
From: "Volker Lendecke"
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 11:01 AM
To: "vg_ us"
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Samba] Very slow samba performance on Centos 6
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 10:49:50AM -0400, vg_ us wrote:
I have 2 identical De
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 10:49:50AM -0400, vg_ us wrote:
> I have 2 identical Dell r510 servers with 10gig card, running centos
> 6 with samba-3.5.4-68.el6_0.2.x86_64.
> I setup 16G ramdisk samba share on both and ran cp from local
> ramdisk to samba ramdisk mount.
> If I cp 12 1-gig files, I get co
Hello all,
I have 2 identical Dell r510 servers with 10gig card, running centos 6 with
samba-3.5.4-68.el6_0.2.x86_64.
I setup 16G ramdisk samba share on both and ran cp from local ramdisk to
samba ramdisk mount.
If I cp 12 1-gig files, I get combined 100MB/s transfer rate. Single file cp
maxes
These are XP clients.
> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:28:33 -0700
> From: j...@samba.org
> To: groucho.64...@hotmail.com
> CC: samba@lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: [Samba] Very slow write performance to RAID
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 01:06:48PM -0400, Kevin Taylor wrote:
&g
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 19:51 -0400, simo wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 00:32 +0100, Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
> > Jeremy Allison wrote:
> >
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > >
> > > Test using a modern (i.e. much later than 3.0.33) smbclient.
> > >
> >
> > To back that up he is using CentOS 5, so there is no
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 00:32 +0100, Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
> Jeremy Allison wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >
> > Test using a modern (i.e. much later than 3.0.33) smbclient.
> >
>
> To back that up he is using CentOS 5, so there is no excuse for using
> such an old version. Needs to switch to the samb
Jeremy Allison wrote:
[SNIP]
Test using a modern (i.e. much later than 3.0.33) smbclient.
To back that up he is using CentOS 5, so there is no excuse for using
such an old version. Needs to switch to the samba3x packages that have
been present since CentOS 5.5 asap. From recollection it i
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 01:06:48PM -0400, Kevin Taylor wrote:
>
> We have a RAID set up as our main fileserver (running samba 3.0.33 on linux,
> CentOS 5). The main disk area is an XFS partition of about 8TB. I'm using
> iostat to monitor disk I/O since we've gotten complaints about speed and I'
0
> To: samba@lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: [Samba] Very slow write performance to RAID
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Kevin Taylor
> wrote:
> >
> > We have a RAID set up as our main fileserver (running samba 3.0.33 on
> > linux, CentOS 5). The main disk are
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Kevin Taylor
wrote:
>
> We have a RAID set up as our main fileserver (running samba 3.0.33 on linux,
> CentOS 5). The main disk area is an XFS partition of about 8TB. I'm using
> iostat to monitor disk I/O since we've gotten complaints about speed and I'm
> not
We have a RAID set up as our main fileserver (running samba 3.0.33 on linux,
CentOS 5). The main disk area is an XFS partition of about 8TB. I'm using
iostat to monitor disk I/O since we've gotten complaints about speed and I'm
noticing that when I write something to the samba share, the write
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:26:59PM -0700, John Du wrote:
> Have you looked at adjusting the "socket options" parameter in smb.conf?
>
> I use "socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_SNDBUF=8192 SO_RCVBUF=8192" in my
> smb.conf and scp and samba take about the same amount of time to
> transfer files fr
Thanks Ben and John, for looking into this issue. I want to clarify since my
earlier comment might be misinterpreted to imply I didn't appreciate your
help. I certainly did.
Raghu A wrote:
>
>
> Well, 1KB is infact the culprit and it seems to be an artifact of the
> application. SMB seems to
Well, 1KB is infact the culprit and it seems to be an artifact of the
application. SMB seems to use one packet for each "write()" call from the
app. So my cygwin command on XP (cat file > remote_file) must be calling
write(1KB). I controlled this write size with dd command and sure enough I
hit t
My samba server is 3.0.28a running on RHEL 4.
My network is also 100Mbps. I copy a 100MB file from Windows XP to my
samba server in about 20 seconds. Scp the same file from a Linux host
to the same server takes about the same time.
You may take a look at setting the Windows TCP buffer sizes
I tried TCP_NODELAY and it didn't make a difference. I haven't tried
SO_SNDBUF and RCVBUF, but I will. As the tcpdump shows there is lot of tcp
window left.
It is not just the server since linux samba client behaves much better. What
determines SMB packet size?
What is the throughput you get? I
Have you looked at adjusting the "socket options" parameter in smb.conf?
I use "socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_SNDBUF=8192 SO_RCVBUF=8192" in my
smb.conf and scp and samba take about the same amount of time to
transfer files from Windows to the samba server.
Raghu A wrote:
There is no disk
There is no disk or CPU bottleneck or virus checking (server is latest
ubuntu). scp at the same time as this transfer can write 3-4 faster to the
same partition. This is an Atom processor but there is more cpu left.
To be more specific:
Why does XP send only 1KB at a time to the server? I think
What type of file processors are you running along with samba?. Are you
running the virus checking plugin or VFS(recycle bin)? Virus checking is
very cpu and disk I/O intensive these can really slow down a samba
server. I can't expect VFS is all that cheap either when moving big files.
Raghu A wro
Sample tcpdump for such a connection : Notice that there are only couple of
1KB chunks for each millisecond :
18:50:57.948157 IP 192.168.0.100.4366 > 192.168.0.104.445: P 2184:3276(1092)
ack 103 win 64719
18:50:57.948374 IP 192.168.0.104.445 > 192.168.0.100.4366: P 103:154(51) ack
3276 win 6553
I mounted a samba volume on XP. XP and Ubuntu are connected over 100Mbps
ethernet (router).
I am writing a 4GB file from XP to Ubuntu and the transfer is extremely slow
: only around 1-1.5 MB/s.
This is not a network or disk issue since at the same time this transfer is
gonig on, I can scp the s
Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 12:54:53PM -0500, Gregory Carter wrote:
Oh, and BY THE WAY.
I do not want to be a total cynic, but you are expecting samba to
replace a software product that the SuSE corporation directly receives
MILLIONS in contributions from, said vendor of p
a.org
Subject: Re: [Samba] Very Slow!
The newest Samba for RHEL 5.2 should be 3.0.28. Is there a reason this box
isn't up to date?
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Brian D. McGrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So now after I've been playing around with the configuration and suc
The newest Samba for RHEL 5.2 should be 3.0.28. Is there a reason this box
isn't up to date?
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Brian D. McGrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> So now after I've been playing around with the configuration and such, it
> seems that the SMB server has become less usable.
So now after I've been playing around with the configuration and such, it seems
that the SMB server has become less usable. Now, all the shares are visible
but as soon as I try to access anything or copy anything I get "The network
path is not valid". Again, trying from XP, 2003 and 2008.
I'v
On 8/29/08 11:16 AM, "Jeremy Allison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 12:54:53PM -0500, Gregory Carter wrote:
>> Oh, and BY THE WAY.
>>
>> I do not want to be a total cynic, but you are expecting samba to
>> replace a software product that the SuSE corporation directly receiv
On 8/29/2008 1:54 PM, Gregory Carter wrote:
> Oh, and BY THE WAY.
>
> I do not want to be a total cynic, but you are expecting samba to
> replace a software product that the SuSE corporation directly receives
> MILLIONS in contributions from, said vendor of product it is replacing.
> (Microsoft.)
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 12:54:53PM -0500, Gregory Carter wrote:
> Oh, and BY THE WAY.
>
> I do not want to be a total cynic, but you are expecting samba to
> replace a software product that the SuSE corporation directly receives
> MILLIONS in contributions from, said vendor of product it is rep
Oh, and BY THE WAY.
I do not want to be a total cynic, but you are expecting samba to
replace a software product that the SuSE corporation directly receives
MILLIONS in contributions from, said vendor of product it is replacing.
(Microsoft.)
SuSe would be the absolute LAST linux distro I wo
I am going to go with a bad samba build.
Won't be the first time.
Try different rpm versions from Red.
Update or Backrev
If that still doesn't work, try putting both the client and the server
on a unmanaged gigabit switch and try the test again.
-gc
Brian McGrew wrote:
System info:
Re
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 07:22:19AM -0700, Brian McGrew wrote:
> That acutally made it worse, now it's estimating over 9 hours to copy 4GB.
Yes, oplocks are a performance *enhancer*, not a drag on speed :-).
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https
>>> I¹m seeing very slow transfers from Samba I¹m not sure how else to
>>> describe it. If I try and copy a 4GB DVD image from the server to any
>>> Windows box (XP, 2003, 2008, MacOS) it estimates more than 4 hours to copy.
>>> However, if I FTP to the server from any given client I can move
>> I¹m seeing very slow transfers from Samba I¹m not sure how else to
>> describe it. If I try and copy a 4GB DVD image from the server to any
>> Windows box (XP, 2003, 2008, MacOS) it estimates more than 4 hours to copy.
>> However, if I FTP to the server from any given client I can move the
aggio originale-
Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per
conto di Brian D. McGrew
Inviato: venerdì 29 agosto 2008 7.33
A: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: samba@lists.samba.org
Oggetto: RE: [Samba] Very Slow!
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:34:02PM -0700, Brian McGrew wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008
> I¹m seeing very slow transfers from Samba I¹m not sure how else to
> describe it. If I try and copy a 4GB DVD image from the server to any
> Windows box (XP, 2003, 2008, MacOS) it estimates more than 4 hours to copy.
> However, if I FTP to the server from any given client I can move the who
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 10:49 -0400, Gerald Drouillard wrote:
> Brian McGrew wrote:
> > System info:
> > Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5 (Tikanga)
> > Kerlen 2.6.18-8.el5 SMP x86_64
> > Samba version 3.0.23c-2
> > Eth0 && Eht1 bonded to bond0, 2Gbps.
Try unbonding the NICs
On 8/29/08 8:33 AM, "Gregory Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting.
>
> That shouldn't be, must be missing something.
>
> Do you have anything at your disposal to measure the broadcast rate on
> your ports for your switch?
>
> I would be curious to know what happens when you engage t
e:
Try to disable oplocks?
Oplocks = no
Level 2 oplocks = no
-Messaggio originale-
Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per
conto di Brian D. McGrew
Inviato: venerdì 29 agosto 2008 7.33
A: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: samba@lists.samba.org
Oggetto: RE: [Samba] Very Slow!
On Thu, A
originale-
>> Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per
>> conto di Brian D. McGrew
>> Inviato: venerdì 29 agosto 2008 7.33
>> A: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: samba@lists.samba.org
>> Oggetto: RE: [Samba] Very Slow!
>>
>> On Thu,
Brian McGrew wrote:
System info:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5 (Tikanga)
Kerlen 2.6.18-8.el5 SMP x86_64
Samba version 3.0.23c-2
Eth0 && Eht1 bonded to bond0, 2Gbps.
/etc/samba/smb.conf attached below...
I¹m seeing very slow transfers from Samba I¹m not sure
> Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per
> conto di Brian D. McGrew
> Inviato: venerdì 29 agosto 2008 7.33
> A: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: samba@lists.samba.org
> Oggetto: RE: [Samba] Very Slow!
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:34:02PM -0700, Brian McGrew
Try to disable oplocks?
Oplocks = no
Level 2 oplocks = no
-Messaggio originale-
Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per
conto di Brian D. McGrew
Inviato: venerdì 29 agosto 2008 7.33
A: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: samba@lists.samba.org
Oggetto: RE: [Samba] Very Slow!
On Thu, Aug
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:34:02PM -0700, Brian McGrew wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:20:09PM -0700, Brian McGrew wrote:
> >> socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
> >
> > Quick try: Remove that.
> >
> > Curious question -- why did you set those options?
> -
>
Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:20:09PM -0700, Brian McGrew wrote:
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
Quick try: Remove that.
Curious question -- why did you set those options?
Volker
That is in the default smb.conf distributed with many distr
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:34:02PM -0700, Brian McGrew wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:20:09PM -0700, Brian McGrew wrote:
> >> socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
> >
> > Quick try: Remove that.
> >
> > Curious question -- why did you set those options?
> -
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:20:09PM -0700, Brian McGrew wrote:
>> socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
>
> Quick try: Remove that.
>
> Curious question -- why did you set those options?
-
It didn't change, still says 4 hours and is taking 3 to 4 seconds to copy
1k.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:20:09PM -0700, Brian McGrew wrote:
> socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
Quick try: Remove that.
Curious question -- why did you set those options?
Volker
pgpixy5KnCfiL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to
System info:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5 (Tikanga)
Kerlen 2.6.18-8.el5 SMP x86_64
Samba version 3.0.23c-2
Eth0 && Eht1 bonded to bond0, 2Gbps.
/etc/samba/smb.conf attached below...
I¹m seeing very slow transfers from Samba I¹m not sure how else to
describe i
Hi,
I've noticed that over a WAN (T1) I'm getting incredibly slow file
copy performance.
Using smbclient on a linux machine on one size of the WAN,
As you can imagine, this makes all of our file shares unusable over the WAN.
It's not an issue with WAN performance, because using scp to transfer
the
Hello.
I'm experiencing slow performance when clients read from a share on
Samba 3.0.24. My clients are mostly Windows XP, 2k and maybe Vista.
I've eliminated all possible bottlenecks. The filesystem doesnt' slow
me down, nor the lvm'ed disks, as you can see here:
(I used pipemeter & cat - poorm
> You could try setting some of the oplock options. I think "fake oplocks =
> yes" on the
> application share could significantly increase the performance when executing.
Éder,
Thanks for your response.
The slow share problem turned out to be a Samba/Ubuntu 7.04 problem with some
NICs -
symp
Hi.
I've run into a significant performance problem,
where Samba shares are fine except for programs executed
from the shares, which take about 100x longer to launch
than expected.
Copying local Windows directories with large files to the
Samba share is getting 30 Mbytes/second. However, trying
Hello!
I sat up a new serrver containig the newest Samba version available
through Debian-aptitude.
Server:
Core 2 Duo E6600 2,4GHz
2Gbyte RAM, 400GB HDD
Debain 2.6.18-4-686 #1 SMP Mon Mar 26 17:17:36 UTC 2007 i686
Samba: 3.0.24-6etch4
Clients:
Win2k PC with min 1.5GHz and 512MByte
Christian Perrier escribió:
> Quoting Eric Shuman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am having a problem accessing very large files through my samba shares
>> after upgrading my file server to Debian Etch (Samba 3.0.24) from Debian
>> Sarge (Samba ???).
>>
>
> Debian sarge has 3.0.1
Quoting Eric Shuman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am having a problem accessing very large files through my samba shares
> after upgrading my file server to Debian Etch (Samba 3.0.24) from Debian
> Sarge (Samba ???).
Debian sarge has 3.0.14a
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to th
Hi all,
I am having a problem accessing very large files through my samba shares
after upgrading my file server to Debian Etch (Samba 3.0.24) from Debian
Sarge (Samba ???).
When trying to open a very large (> 2G) MrSid image in ArcGIS what use to
take about 10 seconds now takes over 30 minutes.
How about the temp directory in Office Preferences. Is it on the local
workstation, or does it default to the dir where the file is opened. I
always thought that could slow things down. (i.e. the creation of the
~foo.doc file).
HTH,
Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following UR
I fixed this by using the following in login scripts for every share
each domain account was supposed to have:
net use driveletter: /delete
net use driverletter: \\newserver\newsharelocation
This fixed 99% of the invalid shares we had. There were a few people
that had manually mapped drives. I
Please review the Samba HOWTO, chapter 10, "Common Errors" where it
discusses this issue.
http://us4.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/NetworkBrowsing.html#id350945
Jonathan Johnson
Sutinen Consulting, Inc.
www.sutinen.com
Aaron Kincer wrote:
Also, as others have mentioned, Wind
Marcello Romani wrote:
Berend Tober ha scritto:
The first time a Word or Excel file is opened, i.e., when either Word
or Excel have not been actively running "recently" (like, say for
several minutes or more), the time it takes to start the application
and load the file seem inordinately long.
Berend Tober ha scritto:
The first time a Word or Excel file is opened, i.e., when either Word or
Excel have not been actively running "recently" (like, say for several
minutes or more), the time it takes to start the application and load
the file seem inordinately long.
Once the first evolut
Is there any difference in behavior when you open the files from within
the applications themselves so that you can remove the application load
time from the equation?
Just a little FYI--MS Office is a strange animal in how it and Samba
play together. It is not uncommon to see behavior there t
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 13:03 -0400, Berend Tober wrote:
> Alex Crow wrote:
> > This wasn't a migration from an NT domain was it? We had the problem
> > after a migration that starting up Office programs was incredibly slow -
> > it turned out there were a load of Office registry entries pointing to
Berend Tober wrote:
> Aaron Kincer wrote:
>> ...
Do you get the same behavior if you attempt to open a .doc file
with Open Office?
>
The answer is yes to that, but I would estimate that it is a little
less noticeable.
Let me correct that. It is a lot less noticable. Maybe even it doesn't
ha
Aaron Kincer wrote:
My first question would be does this happen with other applications or
strictly Office?
No one has complained about other apps, which in our case the next most
heavily used is AutoCAD. I think I would have heard by now if that were
a problem.
Do you get the same behavio
Alex Crow wrote:
This wasn't a migration from an NT domain was it? We had the problem
after a migration that starting up Office programs was incredibly slow -
it turned out there were a load of Office registry entries pointing to
UNC paths on the old Windows PDC.
No. Not NT. Previous file serv
My first question would be does this happen with other applications or
strictly Office? Do you get the same behavior if you attempt to open a
.doc file with Open Office?
Second, have you watched your samba logs in real time (example: tail -f
/var/log/samba/) as you try to open a file to see wh
Berend,
This wasn't a migration from an NT domain was it? We had the problem
after a migration that starting up Office programs was incredibly slow -
it turned out there were a load of Office registry entries pointing to
UNC paths on the old Windows PDC.
Just an idea...
Cheers
Alex
--
To unsu
The first time a Word or Excel file is opened, i.e., when either Word or
Excel have not been actively running "recently" (like, say for several
minutes or more), the time it takes to start the application and load
the file seem inordinately long.
Once the first evolution is complete, files ope
How do I get this "network trace" that Jeremy is asking about?
James Dinkel
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Allison
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 07:50:08AM -0600, James A. Dinkel wrote:
> Our samba server authenticates to Windows 2000 Active Directory and I
have ea support enabled on the shar
Now copying and accessing files is plenty fast, but when setting up
permissions on directories that contain 100 GB or so of files and
subdirectories takes like 60 minutes from the time I hit Ok to the
time the permission are applied and the box goes away. This is being
set from a Windows client b
Our samba server authenticates to Windows 2000 Active Directory and I have ea
support enabled on the share and on the file system. The OS is Debian Stable,
fully updated and using Samba 3.0.23c from Backports.
Now copying and accessing files is plenty fast, but when setting up permissions
on d
Server :
Athlon 64 3000+ ; 512MB Ram ; lots of disks ; nforce3 chipset ;
integrated nvidia gigabit NIC.
Gentoo 2.6.15 linux 64-bits ; Samba 3.0.14a-r2
Clients :
Hello All,
I have been trying to speed up my connection from a Windows XP machine
to a Fedora 3 system running Samba both having 100Mbit connections but
when I try browse my directory on the samba server, it seems to run VERY
slow and takes a long time to do anything.
This seems to be much m
I'm running Fedora Core 3 on two machines; a server and a client. On
the server, I have the package samba-3.0.10-1.fc3 installed; I assume
this means I have samba version 3.0.10. On the client, I have
samba-client-3.0.10-1.fc3, i.e., the same version.
On the same network, I have a Windows XP home
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Again,
I have traced some more on the problem.
It is the failing name resolution via netbios that delay the output from
wbinfo -u.
I can see from a trace that failing lookup's are on other DC's in the
domain, which i don't have access to, but they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have set up Samba-3.0.11 to retrive account information from W2k
server via winbind, and it works.
But is takes about 10 sec. to retrive the information.
I have dumped some traffic from the request, and it looks like this:
A lot of these:
21:21
I started using Samba 3.0.2a in Suse 9.1 (x86_64). The samba server was
lighting fast with both Linux and Windows clients. I have a closed
network with myself as the only user, so I'm not to concerned about
security.
I "updated" to Samba 3.0.8. this turns out to be a big mistake. the
Windo
hi,
sorry for my english ...
I have a problem with samba 3.0.10 on FC3 and machine XP ;
a transfert from XP to samba server is very very slow with huge file ( >
1go ) and the cpu charge is high ( > 80% cpu ) for the smbd process .
help please ...
thanks in advance
Best regards
--
Didier GUILLOT
anyone having, had, or even have any thoughts on the issue described
below? its killing me
The short description of the problem is: using direct to server UNC
type paths, we see 'normal' speeds. Going threw a DFS (re)director,
we see very bad performance from any machine running 3.0.*
I've been experiencing an incredibly slow samba access from a Win2k SP4
client to a Linux samba server (Mandrake 9.0, samba 2.2.8a).
It seems like the file transfer rate is not so slow, but the initial
opening of files on the Linux samba server takes very long (10 ~ 20
seconds). The directory l
Hi everyone,
I have a samba server 2.2.8 as PDC and I have a problem with one pc with
Windows XP pro. When a user wants to connect to the samba server it takes a
long time (also when the user
wants to logoff) but another pc with winXP pro on the domain works fine so I
check the keys in the registr
Hi, my problem is that I have 2 servers on in the US and one in Hungary.
I want to mount a share from the US server here. But file transfers are very slow.
(Never more than 22kbytes/sec)
The bottleneck is in the US the T1.
The architecture looks like:
Fileserver -1Gb- Server -T1 (GRE TUNNEL)- I
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, James Richardson wrote:
> If there were to be a problem at or above the SMB layer then why are we
> not seeing lots of other complaints in this area? I have transferred
> over 30GB of data over 100BaseT at av average of over 10MBytes/sec with
> no burstiness at all. I have tr
Hi All,
I am having a problem with Samba that seems to be a bug. I say this
because I read the archives and they described a problem similar to mine
and were told that it was a bug in older version of Samba and the latest
version should have it fixed. I am running what is essentially a RH 7.3 on
90 matches
Mail list logo
