[Samba] Performance is limited by design on larger servers?

I have a fairly large server with 16 CPU, 8 Gb ram and just four HDD's. While the disks are pretty untouched most of the time, three samba processes are working for dear life. Sometimes going up to 100. These processes are running LDAP, SMB and Kerberos where LDAP seem to be the one mostly utilized

[Samba] low samba performance with glusterfs backend

Hello folks, We test samba performance with local ext4 and glusterfs backends, it shows performance is very different. The samba server has 4 1Gbps NICs and bond with mode 6, backend storage is raid0 with 12 SAS disks. A LUN is created over all disks, make as EXT4 file system, and used as

[Samba] Performance problem using clustered samba via ctdb

Hello, I recently set up a samba cluster with 4 nodes using ctdb. The systems are virtual Citrix xen machines running SuSE SLES11Sp2 with samba 3.6.3. The shared filesystem needed for ctdb is on a ocfs2 share stored on a ISCSI target. The cluster is running fine and ip takeover etc is working fin

Re: [Samba] Very slow samba performance on Centos 6

- 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

Re: [Samba] Very slow samba performance on Centos 6

Subject: Re: [Samba] Very slow samba performance on Centos 6 > > -- > From: "Volker Lendecke" > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 11:01 AM > To: "vg_ us" > Cc: > Subject: Re: [Samba] Very slow samba performance on C

Re: [Samba] Very slow samba performance on Centos 6

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: >

Re: [Samba] Very slow samba performance on Centos 6

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

Re: [Samba] Very slow samba performance on Centos 6

-- 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

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 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

[Samba] Very slow samba performance on Centos 6

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

[Samba] Performance issue on Samba with cups printer

Hi everybody, I am using Samba with cups on CentOS 5.5: 1, set up one network printer by cups, it is created as a raw printer; 2, share this printer by Samba, using the below configuration in smb.conf [global] load printers = yes printing = cups printcap name = cups [printers] comment = All Print

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

Alan Hodgson wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:02:56PM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote: - 4 Intel Gigagit ethernet NIC ports with 802.3ad bonding connected to a switch configured tu use 802.3ad - 8 2TB 7.2 krpm SATA disks with hardware RAID5 (RAID stripe size 1024 bytes, controller and disk cache enable

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

Juan Pablo wrote: Thanks a lot for the advice. It will run these tests and try to find meaningfull information from them. I will post back results. Thanks Juan Pablo What type of speeds are you expecting? With a GB network, your limit is 125MB/s. I get that with writes

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

On 6/2/2011 2:24 PM, Juan Pablo wrote: > Hi Stan, > > Thanks for your feedback and suggestions! You're welcome. Let's hope they're beneficial. > The disk subsystem is composed by: > > - 8 WD2002FAEX SATA 2TB hard drives (7200 RPM, 64MB cache, 4.2 ms avg latency) > - 1 Intel RAID controller RS2

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

Samba] Samba performance On 5/25/2011 10:02 PM, Juan Pablo wrote: > OS access: > Simultaneous read (4 processes): 118 MByte/s average > Samba local access: > Simultaneous read (4 processes): 102 MByte/s average > Samba server from Windows 7: > Simultaneous read (4 term

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

:49:17 AM Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 06:46:51PM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote: > Hi Volker, > > I've removed the SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536 and the 3 other setting, > reloaded samba and repeated the tests but still getting the same results for

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

On 5/25/2011 10:02 PM, Juan Pablo wrote: > OS access: > Simultaneous read (4 processes): 118 MByte/s average > Samba local access: > Simultaneous read (4 processes): 102 MByte/s average > Samba server from Windows 7: > Simultaneous read (4 terminals): 70 MByte/s average The first

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 06:46:51PM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote: > Hi Volker, > > I've removed the SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536 and the 3 other setting, > reloaded samba and repeated the tests but still getting the same results for > the > local tests and also from Windows. > > I am getting the

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

Samba] Samba performance On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 06:34:50AM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote: > Hi Volker, > > I am using the following socket options: > > socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536 Just remove the SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536 settings

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 06:34:50AM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote: > Hi Volker, > > I am using the following socket options: > > socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536 Just remove the SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536 settings. Unless you're on a very old Linux or oth

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

: samba@lists.samba.org Sent: Thu, May 26, 2011 2:45:12 PM Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:02:56PM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote: > > - 4 Intel Gigagit ethernet NIC ports with 802.3ad bonding connected to a > > switch configured tu use 802.3ad > > - 8

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

From: Daniel Deptuła To: samba@lists.samba.org Cc: jhur...@yahoo.com Sent: Thu, May 26, 2011 1:19:03 PM Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance W dniu 2011-05-26 05:02, Juan Pablo pisze: > Hi everyone, > > I'm trying to use samba in a small video post production house but we ar

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

olker Lendecke To: Juan Pablo Cc: Jeremy Allison ; samba@lists.samba.org Sent: Thu, May 26, 2011 2:27:20 PM Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:14:31AM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > Thanks for your reply! > > The tests we did with the Win

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:02:56PM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote: > > - 4 Intel Gigagit ethernet NIC ports with 802.3ad bonding connected to a > > switch configured tu use 802.3ad > > - 8 2TB 7.2 krpm SATA disks with hardware RAID5 (RAID stripe size 1024 > > bytes, controller and disk cache enabled, read

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:14:31AM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > Thanks for your reply! > > The tests we did with the Windows 7 terminals was using smb2. > > When we enabled smb2 in samba we saw in samba logs that it > was not being used. We modified Windows 7 registry as > descri

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

, 2011 1:16:02 PM Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba performance On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:02:56PM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'm trying to use samba in a small video post production house but we are not > getting the performance we expected. > > Our setup:

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:16:02AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > If you're using 3.6.0 and Windows 7 clients try turning on SMB2 support > by setting "max protocol = smb2" in the [global] section of your smb.conf. Well, using smbclient should definitely get better performance. Something is wrong

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

uning samba performance you can read for example here: http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/speed.html But also in many other places on the Internet. Best regards, Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samb

Re: [Samba] Samba performance

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:02:56PM -0700, Juan Pablo wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'm trying to use samba in a small video post production house but we are not > getting the performance we expected. > > Our setup: > > - CenOS 5.6 x86-64 > - samba.x86_64 (3.0.33-3.29.el5_6.2 and 3.6.0rc1) > - Intel

[Samba] Samba performance

Hi everyone, I'm trying to use samba in a small video post production house but we are not getting the performance we expected. Our setup: - CenOS 5.6 x86-64 - samba.x86_64 (3.0.33-3.29.el5_6.2 and 3.6.0rc1) - Intel based server (One 4 core Xeon E5620 @ 2.40GHz, 8 GB RAM) - 4 Intel Gigagit eth

Re: [Samba] Performance with XP64

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 04:35:32PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Volker Lendecke > wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 02:28:37PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > tcpdump reading a 256MB file (from tmpfs) on XP64: > > > http://zewt.org/~glenn/samba.tcpdump.gz, 56

Re: [Samba] Performance with XP64

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Volker Lendecke wrote: > > That's what I'd expect if things are as broken as they look from that > dump: > > the client (XP) isn't buffering requests at all, so the window caps out > at > > 64k. The mail from earlier[1] suggests that some people get much better >

Re: [Samba] Performance with XP64

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 04:35:32PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Volker Lendecke > wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 02:28:37PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > tcpdump reading a 256MB file (from tmpfs) on XP64: > > > http://zewt.org/~glenn/samba.tcpdump.gz, 56

Re: [Samba] Performance with XP64

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 04:35:32PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Volker Lendecke > wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 02:28:37PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > tcpdump reading a 256MB file (from tmpfs) on XP64: > > > http://zewt.org/~glenn/samba.tcpdump.gz, 56

Re: [Samba] Performance with XP64

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 02:28:37PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > tcpdump reading a 256MB file (from tmpfs) on XP64: > > http://zewt.org/~glenn/samba.tcpdump.gz, 56M/sec > > That's pretty much what you would expect. The trace shows > that

Re: [Samba] Performance with XP64

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 02:28:37PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > tcpdump reading a 256MB file (from tmpfs) on XP64: > http://zewt.org/~glenn/samba.tcpdump.gz, 56M/sec That's pretty much what you would expect. The trace shows that your program reads sequentially in 61k chunks. Given that your netwo

Re: [Samba] Performance with XP64

tcpdump reading a 256MB file (from tmpfs) on XP64: http://zewt.org/~glenn/samba.tcpdump.gz, 56M/sec Server (10.0.0.1): Ubuntu (karmic), 2.6.28-13, Samba 3.4.0, Intel 82572EI Client (10.0.0.2): XP64 SP2, Intel PRO/1000 GT (same card as the server, I think) wget http://10.0.0.1/ramdisk -O nul: 97M/s

Re: [Samba] Performance with XP64

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote: > Have you enabled sendfile ? I hadn't; is there a reason it's not enabled by default? It's an old, reliable API in my experience. It made a small but measurable difference: about 2-3MB/sec. FYI, I'm testing with tmpfs on the Linux side to

Re: [Samba] Performance with XP64

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 09:24:21PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > What sort of performance is expected over GigE, with Samba 3 as the > server and XP64 as the client? I havn't been able to find any current > benchmarks at all. > > http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2010-June/156708.html talks ab

[Samba] Performance with XP64

What sort of performance is expected over GigE, with Samba 3 as the server and XP64 as the client? I havn't been able to find any current benchmarks at all. http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2010-June/156708.html talks about the same configuration, and suggests that the protocol should be able

Re: [Samba] performance transfer (samba VS ftp)

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 10:27:55AM -0700, grant little wrote: > I'm using gigerbit ethernet with samaba 3.4.7 default network settings under > ubuntu 10.04 LTS server and last eveing I moved 35 Gigbytes from an iMac to > the samba server over gigabit ethernet and it took around 15 minutes which >

[Samba] performance transfer (samba VS ftp)

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Volker Lendecke put forth on 9/18/2010 12:44 AM: > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 12:22:53AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >> Pol Hallen put forth on 9/15/2010 9:36 AM: > >> > >>> debian stable (samba version 2:3.2.5-4lenny9) > >>> > >>> from clie

Re: [Samba] performance transfer (samba VS ftp)

Volker Lendecke put forth on 9/18/2010 12:44 AM: > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 12:22:53AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> Pol Hallen put forth on 9/15/2010 9:36 AM: >> >>> debian stable (samba version 2:3.2.5-4lenny9) >>> >>> from clients by ftp the transfer of huge file is about 10/11Mb/s (with an >>>

Re: [Samba] performance transfer (samba VS ftp)

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 12:22:53AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Pol Hallen put forth on 9/15/2010 9:36 AM: > > > debian stable (samba version 2:3.2.5-4lenny9) > > > > from clients by ftp the transfer of huge file is about 10/11Mb/s (with an > > ethernet 10/100) > > > > by samba came 5/6Mb/s >

Re: [Samba] performance transfer (samba VS ftp)

Pol Hallen put forth on 9/15/2010 9:36 AM: > debian stable (samba version 2:3.2.5-4lenny9) > > from clients by ftp the transfer of huge file is about 10/11Mb/s (with an > ethernet 10/100) > > by samba came 5/6Mb/s > > is it correct? Good luck. It appears that tuning smbd and clients, both Wi

[Samba] performance transfer (samba VS ftp)

Hi folks :-) situation: debian stable (samba version 2:3.2.5-4lenny9) from clients by ftp the transfer of huge file is about 10/11Mb/s (with an ethernet 10/100) by samba came 5/6Mb/s is it correct? In smb.conf I don't have any "strange"options: thanks Pol domain master = yes preferred mas

[Samba] Testing Samba performance

Hi All -- I have setup a samba share on ubuntu linux and the intention is to setup a fileserver. I need to test the performance of my samba share i.e. the response time to the user whe

Re: [Samba] Performance issues: have eliminated disk and network as cause

Just been told the config file didn't appear in the email as it went out (even though it certainly appears in the copy I've got), so I'm attaching inline this time. Oh, BTW: it's version 3.4.7 on Debian Lenny, installed from backports. [global] workgroup = U4EATECH netbios name =

[Samba] Performance issues: have eliminated disk and network as cause

Hi, I'm not entirely happy with the performance I'm seeing using Samba, and I wonder if anyone can shine any light. The server is a Dell PowerEdge 2950 with hardware RAID10, 4GB RAM and a quad-core Intel Xeon processor. It's not live yet, so there's no load from other tasks. I've already elimin

Re: [Samba] performance tweaks??

On 2010-01-20 at 15:19 -0500 John Drescher sent off: > I have a script I use to force the case. > > Here is a link: > > http://github.com/drescherjm/jmdgentoooverlay/blob/master/Other/shell-scripts/mvcase.sh and in case you also have umlauts and other non-ascii characters in file names, you can

Re: [Samba] performance tweaks??

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:13 PM, steve wrote: > On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 01:15 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 01:10:41PM +1300, steve wrote: >> > I tried this, and ended up woth 2 pc's that could only see the top level >> > of the shaare. So I reverted it, and they *still* c

Re: [Samba] performance tweaks??

On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 01:15 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 01:10:41PM +1300, steve wrote: > > I tried this, and ended up woth 2 pc's that could only see the top level > > of the shaare. So I reverted it, and they *still* can only see one level > > down. > > Ok, well... May

Re: [Samba] performance tweaks??

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 01:10:41PM +1300, steve wrote: > I tried this, and ended up woth 2 pc's that could only see the top level > of the shaare. So I reverted it, and they *still* can only see one level > down. Ok, well... Maybe you have upper/lower case directories in your shares? Sorry, I had

Re: [Samba] performance tweaks??

On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 08:19 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:12:19AM +1300, steve wrote: > > Has anyone any tips on improving samba performance with debian lenny? > > > > I've set up a raid 0 partition on a couple of new WD 1TB disks, > &g

Re: [Samba] performance tweaks??

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:12:19AM +1300, steve wrote: > Has anyone any tips on improving samba performance with debian lenny? > > I've set up a raid 0 partition on a couple of new WD 1TB disks, > formatting the majority of it as a single reiserfs partition. I must > admit I

[Samba] performance tweaks??

Has anyone any tips on improving samba performance with debian lenny? I've set up a raid 0 partition on a couple of new WD 1TB disks, formatting the majority of it as a single reiserfs partition. I must admit I should probably have set the blocksize to something other than the default a

Re: [Samba] samba performance multi-thread and multi core

> I have question about samba performance with  multi-thread and multi core > cpu. > > What can we do for samba performance with  multi-thread and multi core ? > Each connected user gets their own process and thus threads. The system will balance the threads over the cpus. John --

[Samba] samba performance multi-thread and multi core

Hi fellows I have question about samba performance with multi-thread and multi core cpu. What can we do for samba performance with multi-thread and multi core ? -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] performance problem with 3.2.8: unbuffered reads for some users

On 03/04/2009 06:35 PM, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 06:21:27PM +0100, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote: >> The file isn't owned by the user that accesses it, so I guess the >> CAP_LEASE capability should be necessary. But shouldn't strace show a >> call to capset(2) between those

Re: [Samba] performance problem with 3.2.8: unbuffered reads for some users

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 06:21:27PM +0100, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote: > The file isn't owned by the user that accesses it, so I guess the > CAP_LEASE capability should be necessary. But shouldn't strace show a > call to capset(2) between those two F_SETLEASE fcntl calls (0x400)? There is code

Re: [Samba] performance problem with 3.2.8: unbuffered reads for some users

On 03/04/2009 04:16 PM, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote: >> Here's the log for the unbuffered session: >> http://leo.kloburg.at/tmp/samba/log.gf2.gz > > That's the key: > > [2009/03/04 15:51:48, 3] smbd/oplock_linux.c:linux_set_

Re: [Samba] performance problem with 3.2.8: unbuffered reads for some users

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote: > Here's the log for the unbuffered session: > http://leo.kloburg.at/tmp/samba/log.gf2.gz That's the key: [2009/03/04 15:51:48, 3] smbd/oplock_linux.c:linux_set_kernel_oplock(138) linux_set_kernel_oplock: Refused oploc

Re: [Samba] performance problem with 3.2.8: unbuffered reads for some users

On 03/04/2009 03:10 PM, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 02:50:59PM +0100, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote: >> My test case was just reading the firefox LICENSE file, which isn't in >> use by any other user. I can reproduce this behavior with arbitrary >> other files. > > Ah, sorry,

Re: [Samba] performance problem with 3.2.8: unbuffered reads for some users

> Unfortunately I cannot put the server in debug 10 mode now because there > are some clients connected... There is a handly trick for dealing with this: use include files. At the end of the globals section put a: include = /etc/samba/smb.conf.%m Then create a file like: /etc/samba/smb.conf.PC

Re: [Samba] performance problem with 3.2.8: unbuffered reads for some users

On 03/04/2009 03:10 PM, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 02:50:59PM +0100, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote: >> My test case was just reading the firefox LICENSE file, which isn't in >> use by any other user. I can reproduce this behavior with arbitrary >> other files. > > Ah, sorry,

Re: [Samba] performance problem with 3.2.8: unbuffered reads for some users

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 02:50:59PM +0100, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote: > My test case was just reading the firefox LICENSE file, which isn't in > use by any other user. I can reproduce this behavior with arbitrary > other files. Ah, sorry, missed that part. Please send your smb.conf file and a

Re: [Samba] performance problem with 3.2.8: unbuffered reads for some users

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 02:50:59PM +0100, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote: > http://leo.kloburg.at/tmp/samba/abergolth-unbuffered.pcap > http://leo.kloburg.at/tmp/samba/smbadmin-buffered.pcap The key pieces are frame 704 in the buffered and frame 14 in the unbuffered case. Assuming in both cases th

Re: [Samba] performance problem with 3.2.8: unbuffered reads for some users

On 03/04/2009 02:16 PM, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 01:56:26PM +0100, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote: >> I'm experiencing strange performance problems after upgrading to samba >> 3.2.8 from 3.0.30. >> >> For all users except smbadmin (who has administrative rights), read >> per

Re: [Samba] performance problem with 3.2.8: unbuffered reads for some users

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 01:56:26PM +0100, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote: > I'm experiencing strange performance problems after upgrading to samba > 3.2.8 from 3.0.30. > > For all users except smbadmin (who has administrative rights), read > performance is _very_ bad. Looking at the read-requests

[Samba] performance problem with 3.2.8: unbuffered reads for some users

Hi! I'm experiencing strange performance problems after upgrading to samba 3.2.8 from 3.0.30. For all users except smbadmin (who has administrative rights), read performance is _very_ bad. Looking at the read-requests using filemon and wireshark, I found out that for those users, every read is ha

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

lease let me know what you find. Thank you Ales Původní zpráva Od: Fabien Předmět: Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue Datum: 11.1.2009 00:29:18 Hello, as you say, I also think it would be nice to mention the issue i

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

hat would prevent people from asking the same questions over and over again. Might even force Steven to fix the cifs kernel module ;-) Původní zpráva ---- Od: Volker Lendecke Předmět: Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue Datum: 05.1.2009 21:42:42

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

in. Might even force Steven to fix the cifs kernel module ;-) > Původní zpráva > Od: Volker Lendecke > Předmět: Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue > Datum: 05.1.2009 21:42:42 > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 08:25:34PM

[Samba] Performance problem when tagging mp3 files

Hello you, maybe you can help me with a performance problem i´ve when tagging mp3 files from a windows vista system where the files are located on a samba share hosted by a suse linux 9.3 (samba releases is 3.0.23). these are my performance relevant settings. # These settings are a suggestion fo

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 09:24:16AM -0800, rhubbell wrote: > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:27 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Fabien wrote: > > > Thanks for the information. > > > > > > Do you know why the smbclient, although faster, is not fast enough to go >

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:27 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Fabien wrote: > > Thanks for the information. > > > > Do you know why the smbclient, although faster, is not fast enough to go > > over 80Mo/s ? > > > > Is there any plan to do the fiddly work on

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Fabien wrote: > Thanks for the information. > > Do you know why the smbclient, although faster, is not fast enough to go > over 80Mo/s ? > > Is there any plan to do the fiddly work on the smbfs implementation to > make it as fast as smbclient ? :) smbf

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Fabien wrote: > Thanks for the information. > > Do you know why the smbclient, although faster, is not fast enough to go > over 80Mo/s ? No, not from the top of my head. This needs much closer investigation. Volker pgpCbC6MT7n10.pgp Description: PGP s

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

Thanks for the information. Do you know why the smbclient, although faster, is not fast enough to go over 80Mo/s ? Is there any plan to do the fiddly work on the smbfs implementation to make it as fast as smbclient ? :) I didn't try the fuse implemtations yet. I found two : "SMB for Fuse"

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

Hallo, wes, Du (samba) meintest am 06.01.09: > Can I use smbclient to > create a mount point on the unix filesystem the way I can with > mount.cifs? That's the job of "mkdir". No other program. Viele Gruesse! Helmut -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instruct

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 11:45:33AM -0800, wes wrote: > > Ha, lol, no. My question was probably ridiculous beyond comprehension. > > Was asking if there was a way to make use of > > smbclient to replace cifs or smbfs. > > > > I would also like to know the answer to this. Can I use smbclient to cre

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

> > > > Is there a way to setup smbclient to act like a mount point acts? I'm > > > pretty sure the answer's "No." but I ask anyway. > > > > What do you mean by that? You want to slow down smbclient? > > Ha, lol, no. My question was probably ridiculous beyond comprehension. > Was asking if there w

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 20:25 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:41:55AM -0800, rhubbell wrote: > > > > Why do cifs and smbfs not have this capability? Is it too much work? Is > > > > it due to differences in the purpose of each? > > > > > > It's fiddly work nobody has done

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:41:55AM -0800, rhubbell wrote: > > > Why do cifs and smbfs not have this capability? Is it too much work? Is > > > it due to differences in the purpose of each? > > > > It's fiddly work nobody has done yet. > > fiddly = not hard work, but tedious and sort of annoying?

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 19:20 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 09:35:39AM -0800, rhubbell wrote: > > Why do cifs and smbfs not have this capability? Is it too much work? Is > > it due to differences in the purpose of each? > > It's fiddly work nobody has done yet. fiddly =

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 09:35:39AM -0800, rhubbell wrote: > Why do cifs and smbfs not have this capability? Is it too much work? Is > it due to differences in the purpose of each? It's fiddly work nobody has done yet. > Is there a way to setup smbclient to act like a mount point acts? I'm > pret

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 21:47 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 08:25:34PM +0100, Fabien wrote: > > I've seen I'm not the only one impacted with this issue these times on > > the mailing list :) > > > > I did the following test (Debian packages) : > > > > Server & Client : sa

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 08:25:34PM +0100, Fabien wrote: > I've seen I'm not the only one impacted with this issue these times on > the mailing list :) > > I did the following test (Debian packages) : > > Server & Client : samba 3.2.5 > mount -t smbfs : ~35Mo/s > mount -t cifs : ~35Mo/s > smbclie

[Samba] Samba performance issue

Hello, smbclient seems to be really better than mount (cifs & smbfs). Have a look on my thread :) Fabien -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

Hello, I've seen I'm not the only one impacted with this issue these times on the mailing list :) I did the following test (Debian packages) : Server & Client : samba 3.2.5 mount -t smbfs : ~35Mo/s mount -t cifs : ~35Mo/s smbclient : ~80Mo/s Server & Client : samba 3.0.24 mount -t smbfs : ~3

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

I'm gonna try that and post the results here as soon as possible. Do you think it could really make a difference knowing that I also tried the WindowsXP native client without being able to notice any difference ? I must also say that I used cifs for my tests (mount -t cifs). Thanks again, Fab

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 22:01:49 +0100 (CET) Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:57:34PM +0100, Aleš Bláha wrote: > > Thank you for your help. I will try what you propose as soon as I get > > to the machines. But, to be honest, I don't think, the hardware is the > > bottleneck. The RA

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:57:34PM +0100, Aleš Bláha wrote: > Thank you for your help. I will try what you propose as soon as I get > to the machines. But, to be honest, I don't think, the hardware is the > bottleneck. The RAID controller and the NIC in the server sit on a > different PCI bus and e

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

Hi Volker, Thank you for your help. I will try what you propose as soon as I get to the machines. But, to be honest, I don't think, the hardware is the bottleneck. The RAID controller and the NIC in the server sit on a different PCI bus and each one has its interrupt hooked to a different CPU. App

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 05:54:11PM +0100, Aleš Bláha wrote: > Both computers run Gentoo Linux 2008, kernel 2.6.25-r9, > server runs Samba 3.0.33, client mount.cifs 3.0.30. The > underlying filesystem for Samba is Ext3 with xattr and > acls. I wasn't able to break 32MB/s (250Mbps) transfer > speed

[Samba] Samba performance issue

Hi there, I've got similar problem as Fabien. The configuration is as follows: server: 2x Intel Pentium III @ 1GHz 1GB RAM Compaq SmartArray 431 RAID controller Seagate Medalist 3.2GB - system disk 2x Seagate Cheetah, 18GB, 15k RPM in RAID 0 - Samba share Intel 82540EM GbE NIC client: Compaq N

Re: [Samba] Samba performance issue

On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 07:35:06PM +0100, Fabien wrote: > * My server config : >- AMD X2 4200+ >- 2 Go RAM >- 4 x 500 Go --> RAID5 >- Gigabyte connection >- Debian ETCH >- debian package : Samba 3.0.24 (I also tried to backport the testing > version => 3.2.5 but the results

[Samba] Samba performance issue

Hello, I sent the following message to the Debian folks. They don't think that the Debian packaging could be responsible for the issue described there. > Well, I'm not completely convinced that we will have very useful input > for you. I don't really see any reason for this to be caused by the

RE: [Samba] performance problem with access database

amba.org > Subject: [Samba] performance problem with access database > > Hello > > I have problem with a access application, when I try to start the > application then I must wait 5 minutes ago before he started. > I do this from a WinXp Workstation to a Linux Debian Etch and

Re: [Samba] performance problem with access database

Scheidegger Patrick wrote: Hello I have problem with a access application, when I try to start the application then I must wait 5 minutes ago before he started. I do this from a WinXp Workstation to a Linux Debian Etch and samba 3.0.24 installation. What can I do for better performance. best

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >