Hi all. I know this has probably been asked before, but I need a quick answer, and didn't find anything on the net. Has anyone done any benchmark comparisons of server speed from Win95 clients, accessing files on a Samba 1.9.17p1 server share, as compared to an NT Server, running on the same server hardware? If so, how did Samba 1.9.17 measure up to the NT server? I need an answer to this, in order to convince a company currently running Samba 1.9.17p1 on Linux 2.0.x to NOT switch to an NT server. Thanks a million! -- /-------------------------------------------\ | Jim Morris | Home: jmorris@ro.com | \-------------------------------------------/
On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Jim Morris wrote:> I need an answer to this, in order to convince a company currently running > Samba 1.9.17p1 on Linux 2.0.x to NOT switch to an NT server.If all you are depending on to convince this person is performance, then perhaps you might give up now. Try reliability, flexibility, versatility, maintenance and price instead - for starters. Charlie Brady - Telstra |internet: cbrady@ind.tansu.com.au Network Products |Snail : Locked Bag 6581, GPO Sydney 2001 Australia Platform Technologies |Physical : Lvl 2, 175 Liverpool St, Sydney 2000 IN-Sub Unit - Sydney | Phone: +61 2 9206 3470 Fax: +61 2 9281 1301
> ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:39:00 +1000 (EST) > From: Charlie Brady <cbrady@ind.tansu.com.au> > To: Jim Morris <jmorris@ro.com> > Subject: Re: Samba performance > Message-ID: > <Pine.GSO.3.96.970926103651.3814Y-100000@hawk.ind.tansu.com.au> > > > > On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Jim Morris wrote: > > > > I need an answer to this, in order to convince a company currently > running > > > Samba 1.9.17p1 on Linux 2.0.x to NOT switch to an NT server. > > > If all you are depending on to convince this person is performance, > then > > perhaps you might give up now. Try reliability, flexibility, > versatility, > > maintenance and price instead - for starters. > > What are their reasons for wanting to switch? > > Eric
Eric Knudstrup wrote:> > > > What are their reasons for wanting to switch?Well - they are fixing to setup an NT server for the sole reason of benchmarking it against the Samba server - with the goal being speed. I am trying hard to convince them not to waste time doing so. After all, they have been running on a Linux/Samba solution for 2 years with very high reliability. I think management has heard too much of the NT Server hype in the media, is the only reason for this hype. Thanks! -- /-------------------------------\ | Jim Morris | jmorris@ro.com | \-------------------------------/
On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, Eric Knudstrup wrote:> > > On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Jim Morris wrote: > > > > > > I need an answer to this, in order to convince a company currently > > running > > > > Samba 1.9.17p1 on Linux 2.0.x to NOT switch to an NT server. > > > > > If all you are depending on to convince this person is performance, > > then > > > perhaps you might give up now.the performance of a samba server on non-shared files is about half that of an NT server, or indeed any lightly loaded equivalent SMB server that implements oplocks. [note to techies: opportunistic locks - the client will ask for a read/write lock on a file, in the hope that no-one else wants to share it. the client can then do what it likes, all locally]. the performance of a heavily loaded samba server has been demonstrated to be about twice that of an equivalent, heavily loaded NT server. Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@switchboard.net) Web site under construction (http://mailhost.cb1.com/~lkcl) "Confront difficulties while they are still easy"
Hi, I am very interested in the results. Will you have access to them? If so, would you post them here? Thank! E.- Jim Morris <jmorris@ro.com> wrote: : Well - they are fixing to setup an NT server for the sole reason of : benchmarking it against the Samba server - with the goal being speed. I : am trying hard to convince them not to waste time doing so. After all, : they have been running on a Linux/Samba solution for 2 years with very : high reliability. I think management has heard too much of the NT Server : hype in the media, is the only reason for this hype. -- Eloy A. Paris Information Technology Department Rockwell Automation de Venezuela Telephone: +58-2-9432311 Fax: +58-2-9431645
I think that it would be worth reviewing the test setup to make sure that it is a fair comparison. As Luke points out, the performance characteristicts vary depending upon the size and type of the load. Also, you might start reading up on security and administrative issues associated with NT. Good ammo there. Chris -)-----> : Well - they are fixing to setup an NT server for the sole reason of > : benchmarking it against the Samba server - with the goal being speed. I > : am trying hard to convince them not to waste time doing so. After all, > : they have been running on a Linux/Samba solution for 2 years with very > : high reliability. I think management has heard too much of the NT Server > : hype in the media, is the only reason for this hype.-- Christopher R. Hertel -)----- University of Minnesota crh@nts.umn.edu Networking and Telecommunications Services
>On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > >> the performance of a samba server on non-shared files is about halfthat>> of an NT server, or indeed any lightly loaded equivalent SMB serverthat>> implements oplocks. >.. >> the performance of a heavily loaded samba server has beendemonstrated to>> be about twice that of an equivalent, heavily loaded NT server. > >Before Jim gets too discouraged, it is worth noting that people have >reported file delivery by Samba on an ethernet at 800KB/s. I'll eat myhat>if NT doubles that!On my samba server, which is an ancient 486DX4 with only 8Mb, running FreeBSD, I usually see about 500KB/s when transferring large files over 10Mbit ethernet. Only one or two clients are usually connected. I've no idea about NT, because I've never used it, but 500KB/s seems fast to me. What is the max 'raw' throughput of 10Mbit ethernet anyway? About 1MByte/s? --------------------------------------------------- Jeffery Bond <mailto:jeffbond@compuserve.com> <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jeffbond> ---------------------------------------------------
I can already tell you the pids that are using the most cpu are connecting to these large directories. Is there any fix for this or parameters that can ease the pain I am in at the moment. -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:jallison@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 4:44 PM To: Robert Seese Subject: Re: Samba Performance> One thing I should mention is that during the file copy I noticed > performance problems with directories that had several files in them. I > thought the problem was with windows nt but the processes that seem to be > running the slowest hit these directories. By several files I mean 35,000+..> The size of the files does not seem to matter 1k or 5m both are slow. > Sorry for all the emails, > RobertAh - a directory containing 35,000 files ! Samba will probably be very slow on such a beast, as it has to do multiple operations on directories in order to provide the case insensitivity that Windows requires on a UNIX system. Firstly, I would recommend you upgrade to the Red Hat 5.2 Samba 2.0.2 rpm available on the Samba ftp site. This has several bug fixes over 2.0.0 that may help. If you still have problems with that version of 2.0.2 then can you do an strace on one of the processes that is sucking up the CPU so I can see what system calls it is performing ? Thanks, Jeremy. -- -------------------------------------------------------- Buying an operating system without source is like buying a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions. --------------------------------------------------------
I upgraded to 2.02 and still having problems. I am really in some trouble here anything you could suggest just to speed things up would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again! Robert -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:jallison@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 4:44 PM To: Robert Seese Subject: Re: Samba Performance> One thing I should mention is that during the file copy I noticed > performance problems with directories that had several files in them. I > thought the problem was with windows nt but the processes that seem to be > running the slowest hit these directories. By several files I mean 35,000+..> The size of the files does not seem to matter 1k or 5m both are slow. > Sorry for all the emails, > RobertAh - a directory containing 35,000 files ! Samba will probably be very slow on such a beast, as it has to do multiple operations on directories in order to provide the case insensitivity that Windows requires on a UNIX system. Firstly, I would recommend you upgrade to the Red Hat 5.2 Samba 2.0.2 rpm available on the Samba ftp site. This has several bug fixes over 2.0.0 that may help. If you still have problems with that version of 2.0.2 then can you do an strace on one of the processes that is sucking up the CPU so I can see what system calls it is performing ? Thanks, Jeremy. -- -------------------------------------------------------- Buying an operating system without source is like buying a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions. --------------------------------------------------------
done! I am seeing great performance improvements! But one more question. When I open one of the directories that I have purged several files from I get an incomplete directory listing. Thoughts? -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:jallison@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 4:11 PM To: Robert Seese; jallison@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: Samba Performance Robert Seese wrote:> > Here is the file. Hope it helps. > I am sure there is some tuning I could do some tuning with the os to makeit> more efficent. Basicly this servers only function is samba. > If you have any pointers that would be helpfull as well. > I have not upgraded the kernel but I am hesitant since our installrequired> a modified kernel included with the drivers for our ami megaraid card. I > dont want to run into a situation where that information is overwritten. > Thanks, > Robert SeeseWhat should help you is : a). Increase the number of available files and inodes by doing the following commands : This is what I did at PC Week - I set these values to 6000 open files and 12000 inodes in memory by doing : echo "6000" >/proc/sys/kernel/file-max echo "12000" >/proc/sys/kernel/inode-max in the rc.local file so that this is set at bootup time. Set those to the max number of files you expect the system to have open at once, and tune the inodes in memory to match. b). What will give the most performance benefit is to tell Linux to use most of main memory for file cache and to keep it in memory for a long time. To do this add the line : echo "80 500 64 64 80 6000 6000 1884 2" >/proc/sys/vm/bdflush to your rc.local. This tells Linux to use 80% of memory for file system cache and to keep it around for as long as possible. On the PC Week system this made the biggest difference. Note - both of the above are for a 2.0.x linux kernel, the paths in /proc change for a 2.2 kernel. Hope this helps, Jeremy. -- -------------------------------------------------------- Buying an operating system without source is like buying a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions. --------------------------------------------------------
I have been testing out Samba as a possible replacement for our current Netware 4.11 server and I am a bit puzzled by certain performance aspects. I have Samba shares on a Suse 7.3 box running Samba 2.2.1a and the performance seemed to be fine but I noticed that when I opened Word or Excel files there was a 10-12 second delay before the data was loaded. When I switched my client from Windows NT 4.0 to Windows 2000 the delay seemed to go away till I found that though the data came up immediately I still didn't get back control of the mouse for about 10-12 seconds. I then tried opening the same files using OpenOffice and the file loaded in less than a second so I don't think that it can be Samba. Unfortunately our standard Office suite is Microsoft Office97/2000 so I need to find out what is going on. Is this a known issue or has anyone else seen this behaviour? Edmund Featherstone IT Support Manager 4th Floor Adelphi Ext 28614 GTN 391 044-20-7962 8614 -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
Hi!
I have samba 2.2.3a running on my elderly 200mmx-petium box with 48 megs of
ram. My NW-Card is a Davicom 100Mbit card. The nw-performance is not that
bad, 5-7megabytes per second nfs and ftp performance. But my
samba-performance (test clients: win98, win2k, smbclient/linux) is pretty
poor: just 2-3megs/second.
my smb.conf-file looks like that:
---snip---
[global]
workgroup = HOME
netbios name = fileserver
server string = fileserver
encrypt passwords = Yes
update encrypted = Yes
deadtime = 15
socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_SNDBUF=65536
SO_RCVBUF=65536
read raw = yes
write raw = yes
oplocks = yes
max xmit = 65553
getwd cache = yes
lpq cache = yes
os level = 33
preferred master = True
domain master = True
wins support = Yes
invalid users = root mail bin adm uucp
read only = No
hosts allow = 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.0
---snap--- (below share configuration)
Can you give me any hints on improving performance? I don't want to make a
hardware-upgrade, 5-7megs/second is enough for my small home server, but 2
megs is not sufficent for me.
I am running gentoo-linux, kernel 2.4.17, i increased /proc/sys/net/core/rmem
/ wmem values, that helped for nfs performance (with default values no change
to smb performance).
Thanks in advance! :)
Manuel
--
tale manuel@zamora.de
Manuel Juan Zamora-Morschh?user http://www.zamora.de
Blankenlocher Str.7
76351 Linkenheim
Germany Mobile +49 (0)179 6666250
"How many times do I have to tell you!?
MONKEYS are the ones who walk; CHEESE is yellow! *sigh*"
Any ideas where i can get a "things to check" list for performace tuning of Samba Currently copying 300mb of data since 09:00am this morning and still going ...now 12:20! 100mb full duplex nic on a IBM x232 series dual proc Piii-1.2ghz, 512mb ram, raid 5 - 18.2gb drives samba ---------- mandrake 8.2 with 2.2.5pre1 according to smbstatus - locks are exclusive+batch Locked files: Pid DenyMode Access R/W Oplock Name -------------------------------------------------------------- 2276 DENY_ALL 0x30196 WRONLY EXCLUSIVE+BATCH /var/apps/opera/data/s_aentry.cdx Mon Oct 28 12:28:27 2000 any tips would be appreciated kind regards rod -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
Try an ifconfig and see if you are getting errors on the NIC first. Noel -----Original Message----- From: rod@newtonhall.co.uk [mailto:rod@newtonhall.co.uk] Sent: 28 October 2002 12:38 To: samba@lists.samba.org Subject: [Samba] Samba Performance Any ideas where i can get a "things to check" list for performace tuning of Samba Currently copying 300mb of data since 09:00am this morning and still going ...now 12:20! 100mb full duplex nic on a IBM x232 series dual proc Piii-1.2ghz, 512mb ram, raid 5 - 18.2gb drives samba ---------- mandrake 8.2 with 2.2.5pre1 according to smbstatus - locks are exclusive+batch Locked files: Pid DenyMode Access R/W Oplock Name -------------------------------------------------------------- 2276 DENY_ALL 0x30196 WRONLY EXCLUSIVE+BATCH /var/apps/opera/data/s_aentry.cdx Mon Oct 28 12:28:27 2000 any tips would be appreciated kind regards rod --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.404 / Virus Database: 228 - Release Date: 15/10/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.404 / Virus Database: 228 - Release Date: 15/10/2002 -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
> -----Original Message----- > From: mlh [mailto:mlh@zip.com.au]> Also, double check that the nic is in fact running full duplex. > It's best just to force both sides to full duplex since > auto-negotiation is so unreliable.And the really tricky thing about a duplex mismatch is you'll only see errors in the statistics on one end. (The end that's running half duplex will report lots of late collisions.) The other will report nothing's wrong. If one end of the link is an unmanaged switch, there may be *no* way to diagnose the problem through statistics, short of using a network sniffer! BTDT...we have an unmanaged switch that can be set to half or full duplex on each port, but that does *not* autonegotiate at all. It's caused me some real headaches. The other nasty thing about this problem is short packets like pings invariably get through fine. It's only when you try to copy a big file that the problem crops up.