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
> Debian packaging. To check this, why not compile samba from sources,
> install it in /usr/local and run the same tests?
>
> I also recommend you bring this problem in the samba users mailing
> lists (samba@lists.samba.org seems appropriate).
I must say I didn't try to compile it from the upstream sources for many
reasons.
Anyway, I think that there is poor chances for the issue to be related
with the Debian package.
Thank you in advance for your advices ;)
Happy new year ! (yeah, it depends on where you are in the world !!)
Fabien
--------------
Hello,
sorry to write directly to you, but after long hours spent trying to
solve this strange problem, I thought it could be handled better by
speaking directly with you. I hope I'm not wrong...
While testing samba speed on my file server, using a fully tested
gigabyte ethernet connexion, I encontered some very strange performance
problems.
I had big speed differences when using samba locally, or via the network
(gigabyte).
"Mb" stands for Mbytes.
* 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 were exactly the same)
* My samba share folder is a partition of my RAID 5 (reading : 170 Mb/s
& writing : 90 Mb/s).
* Here are my benchmarks (nearly the same from Linux or Windows) :
- Reading via ftp on the server (no samba) from a Gigabyte client :
=> 120Mb/s
- Reading on the samba server from a Gigabyte client
=> 35Mb/s
- Writting via ftp on the server (no samba) from a Gigabyte client :
=> 90Mb/s
- Writing on the samba server from a Gigabyte client :
=> 40Mb/s
I also noticed that if I try to read/write on the samba server from more
than just one client, the results is exactly the same : the server
bandwith limit is 35(up)/40(down) Mb/s.
/!\ When I mount the samba partition localy (on the server) I can read
at 115 Mb/s or write at 90 Mb/s, which is the good behavior.
I tried MS Windows and Linux (etch) smbfs clients.
I did a lot of testing, using a 1Go RAM disk on both sides to avoid
disks problems, and got the same test results.
Do you think that the problem could come from the Debian package ?
I investigated google a lot and found very few people reporting this
strange behavior (mainly from ubuntu forums). I am pretty sure that
several (every ?) people, at least from debian, are concerned. I think
that they just didn't notice the speed problem (35Mo/s is still quite
nice to be noticeable).
I found some people trying to tweak the samba buffers : they only got a
little better speed (+ 5Mo/s).
My smb.conf file is attached.
Thanks for your help.
Cheers,
Fabien
-------------- next part --------------
[global]
workgroup = MSHOME
server string = zeus
interfaces = eth1
bind interfaces only = Yes
security = SHARE
guest account = sambauser
name resolve order = host wins bcast
load printers = No
os level = 0
preferred master = No
local master = No
domain master = No
invalid users = root
force group = sambashare
[private_data]
comment = private_data
path = /data1
read only = No
create mask = 0770
directory mask = 0770
[common_data]
comment = common_data
path = /data2
read only = No
create mask = 0775
directory mask = 0775
guest ok = Yes
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 were exactly the same)Can you try the smbclient from 3.2.5 to get a large file and see if that performs better? Thanks, Volker -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20090101/315bd036/attachment.bin
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 NC6220 laptop Intel Pentium M @ 1.73GHz 512MB RAM Fujitsu 40MB ATA Broadcom BCM5751M GbE NIC switch: Dlink DGS-1005D 5-port, unmanaged GbE switch 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 neither reading nor writing to the server. The disk subsystem of the server is capable of 60MB/s and generaly the hardware is not the bottleneck. Neither is the network - the bw_tcp from LMbench suite shows around 108MB/s with 1500b messages, which is what I would expect from GbE & TCP/IP. I've been tinkering with very much all the knobs the linux's TCP/IP stack has, the same goes for smb.conf - to no avail. The only thing I couldn't test are Jumbo frames, because the BCM5751M doesn't support them. Unfortunately I can't post my smb.conf, as I am off today, but I can post it later. However, I have find out that having several reads (or writes) pending increases the transfer speed up to 108MB/s, which proves that the hardware is not the bottleneck: I've created a 500MB file on the server and as it fits into the buffer cache the disk subsystem's limits are eliminated. Then I opened it ten times with 'dd if=/mnt/samba/examplefile of=/dev/null &' and this way I was able to saturate the GbE network. But I would like to read and write to Samba close to the hw speed within one tcp session. I was not able to manage that and after some googling on the Internet I've found out that I'm not the only one suffering from this issue. Does Samba scale to gigabit speed within one opened tcp session? Limitition of SMB protocol? Or is it linux TCP/IP stack issue? Any suggestions? Thank you in advance Ales Blaha
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 : ~35Mo/s mount -t cifs : ~35Mo/s smbclient : ~60Mo/s This is the first time I try smbclient. There is a real big difference between mount and smbclient ! And it seems to be better to use the 3.2.5 version which is ~ 20Mo/s better than the 3.0.24 version. Again, all of this was tested without using the disks (buffer cache). Do you know where does this difference comes from ? Fabien Volker Lendecke a ?crit :> On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 02:26:01AM +0100, Fabien wrote: >> 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 ? > > Not sure, but for me it makes a difference. > > Volker
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 the smbfs implementation to > > make it as fast as smbclient ? :) > > smbfs is dead. CIFSFS is under active development.Is the fiddly work being done in CIFSFS? Or planned?
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 > > > over 80Mo/s ? > > > > > > Is there any plan to do the fiddly work on the smbfs implementation to > > > make it as fast as smbclient ? :) > > > > smbfs is dead. CIFSFS is under active development. > > > Is the fiddly work being done in CIFSFS? Or planned?Talk to Steve French and Jeff Layton, who are the most active developers on CIFSFS. Jeremy.