Re: [Samba] SMB slow by design?

2007-02-01 Thread admin-listas
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

RE: [Samba] SMB slow by design?

2007-02-01 Thread James A. Dinkel
> -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

Re: [Samba] SMB slow by design?

2007-02-01 Thread Chris Garrigues
> 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

Re: [Samba] SMB slow by design?

2007-02-01 Thread Aaron Kincer
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

Re: [Samba] SMB slow by design?

2007-02-01 Thread Jeremy Allison
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

RE: [Samba] SMB slow by design?

2007-02-01 Thread James A. Dinkel
> -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

Re: [Samba] SMB slow by design?

2007-01-27 Thread Edmundo Valle Neto
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

Re: [Samba] SMB slow by design?

2007-01-27 Thread Jeremy Allison
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

Re: [Samba] SMB slow by design?

2007-01-27 Thread Jan Engelhardt
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

Re: [Samba] SMB slow by design?

2007-01-27 Thread Volker Lendecke
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,