Chris Garrigues escribió:
>> From: Jeremy Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:56:25 -0800
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:47:59AM -0600, James A. Dinkel wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know why, but I just tried this, removind the SNDBUF AND RCVBUF,
>>> and the file share does see
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Garrigues
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 2:06 PM
>
> > From: Jeremy Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:56:25 -0800
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:47:59AM -0600, James A. Dinkel wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know why, but I ju
> From: Jeremy Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:56:25 -0800
>
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:47:59AM -0600, James A. Dinkel wrote:
> >
> > I don't know why, but I just tried this, removind the SNDBUF AND RCVBUF,
> > and the file share does seem snappier. I had never messed w
And it looks like I'll have to go update where I put that in a line in
an Ubuntu wiki entry I made and take it out.
Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:47:59AM -0600, James A. Dinkel wrote:
I don't know why, but I just tried this, removind the SNDBUF AND RCVBUF,
and the file sh
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:47:59AM -0600, James A. Dinkel wrote:
>
> I don't know why, but I just tried this, removind the SNDBUF AND RCVBUF,
> and the file share does seem snappier. I had never messed with these
> options, I just found several places that said setting these to 8192
> gave a perf
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:samba-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edmundo Valle
> Neto
> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 7:14 PM
> To: Jeremy Allison
> Cc: samba@lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: [Samba] SMB slow by design?
>
> J
Jeremy Allison escreveu:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:35:32PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Ah I found it. This is smb.conf: http://pastebin.ca/330452
Removing SO_SNDBUF=8192 gives
$ smbget smb://localhost/rt/blob.iso
[blob.iso] 41.08Mb of 171.06Mb (24.01%) at 41.08Mb/s ETA: 00:00:03
perfect p
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:35:32PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> Ah I found it. This is smb.conf: http://pastebin.ca/330452
> Removing SO_SNDBUF=8192 gives
>
> $ smbget smb://localhost/rt/blob.iso
> [blob.iso] 41.08Mb of 171.06Mb (24.01%) at 41.08Mb/s ETA: 00:00:03
>
> perfect performance aga
On Jan 27 2007 22:46, Volker Lendecke wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:10:36PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> In the win98--3.0.22 network I have observed that smbd takes a lot of
>> %system CPU time when transferring files. Since I observe this slowness
>> on three different setups, the ques
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:10:36PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> In the win98--3.0.22 network I have observed that smbd takes a lot of
> %system CPU time when transferring files. Since I observe this slowness
> on three different setups, the question arises: is SMB/CIFS badly
> designed?
Well,
10 matches
Mail list logo