Hi all, I am running a samba server (2.0.3) in a small eth-based home network. There is only one win client (NT workstation, Sp4). The samba box ist set up with wins support enabled and the NT box? wins server entry points to samba server. Everything works fine: no error messages neither server nor client. The server shows up immediately in the NT?s network neigborhood. Browsing is fast. !!But for example copying a file of 32 Megs takes 50 minutes!! I have tried various setups in every possible combination: kernel 2.2.5/2.2.3 - samba 2.0.3/2.0.2/1.9... kernel 2.0.34/35/36 - samba 2.0.3/2.0.2/1.9... I have also applied all the tuning measures (TCP_NODELAY etc.) and taken them out again. I have performed the checks in DIAGNOSIS.txt and of course checked with testparm. Everthing seems to be okay. Finally I changed the network cards (all NE2000 clones), but to no avail. BTW the network speed using other connections (telnet,www,ftp) is as expected. What?s wrong here? Thanks...Ralf
When it's that slow, suspect the NIC card: It's quite possible to get SMB services wedged on a card that is failing, but will still do ping. Ditto switched to the wrong duplex, etc, etc. Try ftp: it should run at roughly the same speed as Samba. If so, you have a problem with TCP/IP. If not, you have a problem with SMB. (Note: roughly means "same order or magnitude") --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify some people 185 Ellerslie Ave., | and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain Willowdale, Ontario | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb Work: (905) 477-0437 Home: (416) 223-8968 Email: davecb@canada.sun.com
Ralf Nagel schrieb:> > Hi all, > > I am running a samba server (2.0.3) in a small eth-based home network. > There is only one win client (NT workstation, Sp4). > The samba box ist set up with wins support enabled and the NT box? > wins server entry points to samba server. Everything works fine: no > error messages neither server nor client. The server shows up > immediately in the NT?s network neigborhood. Browsing is fast. > > !!But for example copying a file of 32 Megs takes 50 minutes!!>(...)Hello again, the problem is solved! I tracked it down to a corrupted TCP-stack on the NT-box (thanks David). After reinstalling the complete TCP-section on the NT- box everything works perfectly now. It is really fast! So, do not always think it?s the unix/samba combo that is broken or misconfigured... Regards...Ralf
Dear all, I have a difficult Problem with samba 2.2.5, I hope everyone can help me. My customer has samba 2.2.5 running on a HP Alpha Server ES40 Cluster with Tru64 V5.1. The share on this Server has 3.1 million files in 16000 directories. Some one this directories have 45000 files on it. The problem is: if we try a search a file from this big directory via an NT Client the response time is to large for the the customer. He has run an similar application on a NT File server. NT responded after 1 sec and samba need 6 sec. Can someone explain me what I can do to increase the performance, please? Kind Regards / Mit freundlichen Gr?ssen Wolfgang Belgardt Customer Support Consultant Hewlett-Packard GmbH Customer Support Bonsiepen 5 D-45136 Essen Phone: ++49 (0) 201 2663 258 Fax: ++49 (0) 201 2663 200 mobil: +49 (0171 3357 256) E-mail: Wolfgang.Belgardt@hp.com http://www.hp.com/de __________________________________________________________________________________ Hewlett-Packard GmbH Gesch?ftsf?hrer: J?rg Menno Harms (Vorsitzender), J?rgen Banhardt, Wolfram Fischer, Rainer Kaczmarczyk, B?rbel Schmidt, Fritz Schuller, Regine Stachelhaus Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Heribert Schmitz Sitz der Gesellschaft: B?blingen, Amtsgericht B?blingen HRB 4081 -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
Someone else might well know better but.... I believe this is a file system issue. ext2/ext3 manipulate the directory entries using lists so if you have a great many files in one directory you will see performance issues as you describe. The answer to this is to change filesystem - no mean feat with your data sizes. Filesystems like XFS and ReiserFS use binary trees to manipulate the directory entries and it is a far faster way of doing things with crowded directories so you should see an improvemnet. I suppose an alternative short term solution is to get the users to break large directories up into small ones if the data lends itself to it. HTH Noel -----Original Message----- From: Belgardt, Wolfgang [mailto:Wolfgang.Belgardt@hp.com] Sent: 05 December 2002 20:45 To: samba@samba.org Subject: [Samba] Samba Performance question Dear all, I have a difficult Problem with samba 2.2.5, I hope everyone can help me. My customer has samba 2.2.5 running on a HP Alpha Server ES40 Cluster with Tru64 V5.1. The share on this Server has 3.1 million files in 16000 directories. Some one this directories have 45000 files on it. The problem is: if we try a search a file from this big directory via an NT Client the response time is to large for the the customer. He has run an similar application on a NT File server. NT responded after 1 sec and samba need 6 sec. Can someone explain me what I can do to increase the performance, please? Kind Regards / Mit freundlichen Gr?ssen Wolfgang Belgardt Customer Support Consultant Hewlett-Packard GmbH Customer Support Bonsiepen 5 D-45136 Essen Phone: ++49 (0) 201 2663 258 Fax: ++49 (0) 201 2663 200 mobil: +49 (0171 3357 256) E-mail: Wolfgang.Belgardt@hp.com <mailto:Wolfgang.Belgardt@hp.com> http://www.hp.com/de <http://www.hp.com/de> ____________________________________________________________________________ ______ Hewlett-Packard GmbH Gesch?ftsf?hrer: J?rg Menno Harms (Vorsitzender), J?rgen Banhardt, Wolfram Fischer, Rainer Kaczmarczyk, B?rbel Schmidt, Fritz Schuller, Regine Stachelhaus Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Heribert Schmitz Sitz der Gesellschaft: B?blingen, Amtsgericht B?blingen HRB 4081 -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
> ext2/ext3 manipulate the directory entries using lists > so if you have a great many files in one directory you > will see performance issues as you describe. The answer > to this is to change filesystem - no mean feat with your > data sizes. Filesystems like XFS and ReiserFS use binary > trees to manipulate the directory entries and it is a far > faster way of doing things with crowded directories so > you should see an improvemnet.Migrating to another file system should not be a big headache, if you have the means (free disk space, tapes). Such a shame ReiserFS has no ACLs. By far the best for such situations.> I suppose an alternative short term solution is to get > the users to break large directories up into small ones > if the data lends itself to it.Divide and conquer. But maybe there are simpler ways. My impression is that all transactions are significantly faster on a Samba than on the comparable Windoze. I'd like to reproduce your problem. Could you be more specific? Could you take a representative directory, copy the structure somewhere else, i.e. just empty files with identical names, tar it, gzip it and attach it to your mail? Give precisely the command you're using and the timings you get, network conditions, platform, version etc. and I'll see what's wrong. As I said, what turned me on to Samba was when I saw how fast it could compute a directory size in a property box. With the copy of the same directory on both sides Samba was beating Redmond hands down with a factor of at least 10 on any vaguely non-trivial hierarchy. _____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 04:13 AM, Noel Kelly wrote:> Someone else might well know better but.... > ? > I believe this is a file system issue.? ext2/ext3 manipulate the > directory entries using lists so if you have a great many files in one > directory you will see performance issues as you describe.The original poster is running an HP cluster system with Tru64 v5.1! Linux has nothing to do with his issues.> The answer to this is to change filesystem - no mean feat with your > data sizes.? Filesystems like XFS and ReiserFS use binary trees to > manipulate the directory entries and it is a far faster way of doing > things with crowded directories so you should see an improvemnet.Probably a good point, but again, he is limited to the filesystems available under Tru64. I have only used HP-UX up through V10.0, and am not familiar with Tru64, so cannot comment on that.... ?> I suppose an alternative short term solution is to get the users to > break large directories up into small ones if the data lends itself to > it.Probably the best solution - but maybe not what his customer will want to hear.... Wolfgang: is this on a raid array, or some type of other storage array? Could that be the bottleneck? Is the NT system using comparable storage hardware? -- Jim Morris (Jim@Morris-World.com) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1815 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20021206/63daf22a/attachment.bin
We had the same problem here and I traced it to how Samba pretends to be a
Windows server.
Basically Samba does this:
1) build an in-memory list of a directory's contents, with 8.3 mangled
names
2) When asked for a file, look through the list created in step 1) trying
to find a match. It tries an exact match and then an 8.3 match.
With large numbers of files in directories (I have one with about 650000
files), 1) creates a huge list and 2) takes forever and pegs the CPU at
100%.
In cases with large numbers of files, Windows wins hands-down, because the
8.3-stupid-stuff is handled by the filesystem.
I solved this by making a modified version of a few routines.
1) I make the routines that create the directory list abort after 100 files
and pretend there are no more files.
2) I modified the file opening routine (trans2_readdir, I think) to attempt
to open the file using the filesystem first, bypassing all
case-insenitive-8.3-mangling code. If that fails, I let it try the
look-up-in-a-list method (except for a hard-coded directory where I return
file-not-found if the direct attempt failed).
3) I set 'dont descend' on the big directories, to help users who
mistakenly try to browse the directory with explorer, although mod 1) would
mean they'd only see 100 files anyway.
Making these changes allows my HP9000-D380/2 to outperform a Windows NT 4
Pentium 2 when dealing with directories of over 600000 files. Stock Samba
compiled from source (or the depot from itrc) served files from this
directory at about the rate of 5 min/file, with the CPU pegged at 100%. NT
can handle this in less than 1 second. Now I have over 400 people opening
files in this directory all day, and the CPU doesn't even work up a sweat.
The mods I made break what I understand SMB to be. The broken-ness would
only affect old clients (Win 3.1) and clients that try to open
'AFILE.DOC'
and expect to get 'afile.doc'. Since I control what the client requests,
I
could get around this. YMMV.
Hope this helps. Does anybody know if changes to address this problem are
in Samba 3?
All the best,
Paul
"Belgardt, Wolfgang"
<Wolfgang.Belgardt@hp.co To:
<samba@samba.org>
m> cc:
Sent by: Subject: [Samba] Samba
Performance question
samba-admin@lists.samba.
org
05/12/2002 04:45 PM
Dear all,
I have a difficult Problem with samba 2.2.5, I hope everyone can help me.
My customer has samba 2.2.5 running on a HP Alpha Server ES40 Cluster with
Tru64 V5.1. The share on this Server has 3.1 million files in 16000
directories.
Some one this directories have 45000 files on it.
The problem is: if we try a search a file from this big directory via an
NT Client the response time is to large for the the customer.
He has run an similar application on a NT File server. NT responded after 1
sec and samba need 6 sec.
Can someone explain me what I can do to increase the performance, please?
Kind Regards / Mit freundlichen Gr?ssen
Wolfgang Belgardt
Customer Support Consultant
Hewlett-Packard GmbH
Customer Support
Bonsiepen 5
D-45136 Essen
Phone: ++49 (0) 201 2663 258
Fax: ++49 (0) 201 2663 200
mobil: +49 (0171 3357 256)
E-mail: Wolfgang.Belgardt@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/de
__________________________________________________________________________________
Hewlett-Packard GmbH
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: J?rg Menno Harms (Vorsitzender), J?rgen Banhardt, Wolfram
Fischer,
Rainer Kaczmarczyk, B?rbel Schmidt, Fritz Schuller, Regine Stachelhaus
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Heribert Schmitz
Sitz der Gesellschaft: B?blingen, Amtsgericht B?blingen HRB 4081
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Hello Jim and Noel, Thanks for your helps. You ask me about the physical disk configuration. A short survey: The physical Configuration of the storage is a HP/Compag SAN fabric with five HSG80 storage array controllers. The disk on this five controllers are configured to raid 5 sets. ( All raid 5 sets ( about 25) are summarized by advfs addvol command to one big advfs Volume. I believe that we have an very good balancing on the fiber optic SAN and also on the HSG80 storage controllers. If I run a search from Tru64, have excellent time of response. Parallel we have tested with ASU (Advanced Server Unix Software) and the responds was factor 2 higher as with samba. To break down the large directories was my first meaning also, we have done this depended from the software. Now we can't more decrease the number of file in the directories. I have read in a document, that samba has changed from shared memory to use mmap. Is there an bottleneck maybe? I will look to the kernel parameters from ubc (unified buffer cache) on Tru64. I believe it is a buffer problem, but where? Kind Regards / Gr?sse Wolfgang -----Original Message----- From: Jim Morris [mailto:Jim@Morris-World.com] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 17:29 To: Noel Kelly Cc: Belgardt, Wolfgang; samba@samba.org Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba Performance question On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 04:13 AM, Noel Kelly wrote: Someone else might well know better but.... I believe this is a file system issue. ext2/ext3 manipulate the directory entries using lists so if you have a great many files in one directory you will see performance issues as you describe. The original poster is running an HP cluster system with Tru64 v5.1! Linux has nothing to do with his issues. The answer to this is to change filesystem - no mean feat with your data sizes. Filesystems like XFS and ReiserFS use binary trees to manipulate the directory entries and it is a far faster way of doing things with crowded directories so you should see an improvemnet. Probably a good point, but again, he is limited to the filesystems available under Tru64. I have only used HP-UX up through V10.0, and am not familiar with Tru64, so cannot comment on that.... I suppose an alternative short term solution is to get the users to break large directories up into small ones if the data lends itself to it. Probably the best solution - but maybe not what his customer will want to hear.... Wolfgang: is this on a raid array, or some type of other storage array? Could that be the bottleneck? Is the NT system using comparable storage hardware? -- Jim Morris (Jim@Morris-World.com) -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
Hello Paul,
Thanks for your explanations of samba doings in this case.
1) where is samba build the in-memory list? On server or on the client? I
think on the server, right?
1a) All file are 8.3 named files; installed via a NT client
.
2) To your informations: I believe the customer software is searching the files
with wildcards. What is the customer doing? He read on a NT client music CDs and
build from every Track on this CD a 30 sec MP3 file. The software is automatic
create a 8 character long directory and write for all tracks,of the CD, an mp3
file with an 8.3 name. Only the 3 character exts is different; to recognize the
tracks. The write is not a Problem, because the time is not relevant for the
customer.
What is doing with this files? When a customer goes to the CD shop an he will be
hearing a music from a CD, he put the CD to a barcode reader and then the
software is searching via the barcode key the mp3 files to play the music. This
search is doing, I believe, with wildcards. The time to search is 6 sec in a
directory with 45000 files and with a filename with 257 exts.
When we search in this directory a file with fewer exts (ie 15) the search need
3 sec. With much fewer files in directory (10000) search is done fewer the 1
sec.
Kind Regards / Gr?sse
Wolfgang
-----Original Message-----
From: paul.r.schenk@accenture.com [mailto:paul.r.schenk@accenture.com]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 19:33
To: Belgardt, Wolfgang
Cc: samba@samba.org
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba Performance question
We had the same problem here and I traced it to how Samba pretends to be a
Windows server.
Basically Samba does this:
1) build an in-memory list of a directory's contents, with 8.3 mangled
names
2) When asked for a file, look through the list created in step 1) trying
to find a match. It tries an exact match and then an 8.3 match.
With large numbers of files in directories (I have one with about 650000
files), 1) creates a huge list and 2) takes forever and pegs the CPU at
100%.
In cases with large numbers of files, Windows wins hands-down, because the
8.3-stupid-stuff is handled by the filesystem.
I solved this by making a modified version of a few routines.
1) I make the routines that create the directory list abort after 100 files
and pretend there are no more files.
2) I modified the file opening routine (trans2_readdir, I think) to attempt
to open the file using the filesystem first, bypassing all
case-insenitive-8.3-mangling code. If that fails, I let it try the
look-up-in-a-list method (except for a hard-coded directory where I return
file-not-found if the direct attempt failed).
3) I set 'dont descend' on the big directories, to help users who
mistakenly try to browse the directory with explorer, although mod 1) would
mean they'd only see 100 files anyway.
Making these changes allows my HP9000-D380/2 to outperform a Windows NT 4
Pentium 2 when dealing with directories of over 600000 files. Stock Samba
compiled from source (or the depot from itrc) served files from this
directory at about the rate of 5 min/file, with the CPU pegged at 100%. NT
can handle this in less than 1 second. Now I have over 400 people opening
files in this directory all day, and the CPU doesn't even work up a sweat.
The mods I made break what I understand SMB to be. The broken-ness would
only affect old clients (Win 3.1) and clients that try to open
'AFILE.DOC'
and expect to get 'afile.doc'. Since I control what the client requests,
I
could get around this. YMMV.
Hope this helps. Does anybody know if changes to address this problem are
in Samba 3?
All the best,
Paul
"Belgardt, Wolfgang"
<Wolfgang.Belgardt@hp.co To:
<samba@samba.org>
m> cc:
Sent by: Subject: [Samba] Samba
Performance question
samba-admin@lists.samba.
org
05/12/2002 04:45 PM
Dear all,
I have a difficult Problem with samba 2.2.5, I hope everyone can help me.
My customer has samba 2.2.5 running on a HP Alpha Server ES40 Cluster with
Tru64 V5.1. The share on this Server has 3.1 million files in 16000
directories.
Some one this directories have 45000 files on it.
The problem is: if we try a search a file from this big directory via an
NT Client the response time is to large for the the customer.
He has run an similar application on a NT File server. NT responded after 1
sec and samba need 6 sec.
Can someone explain me what I can do to increase the performance, please?
Kind Regards / Mit freundlichen Gr?ssen
Wolfgang Belgardt
Customer Support Consultant
Hewlett-Packard GmbH
Customer Support
Bonsiepen 5
D-45136 Essen
Phone: ++49 (0) 201 2663 258
Fax: ++49 (0) 201 2663 200
mobil: +49 (0171 3357 256)
E-mail: Wolfgang.Belgardt@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/de
__________________________________________________________________________________
Hewlett-Packard GmbH
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: J?rg Menno Harms (Vorsitzender), J?rgen Banhardt, Wolfram
Fischer,
Rainer Kaczmarczyk, B?rbel Schmidt, Fritz Schuller, Regine Stachelhaus
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Heribert Schmitz
Sitz der Gesellschaft: B?blingen, Amtsgericht B?blingen HRB 4081
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Hello Wolfgang,
First, to answer your question 1), Samba builds the directory list on the
server.
Now, given what you describe in 2), Samba is not the tool for you. It
handles the situation you describe very poorly.
All is not lost though, since you control the filenames, and presumably the
code that looks for them, I'd rip-out all the samba 8.3-case-insensitive
code in trans2.c (get_lanman2_dir_entry, trans2_find_first, ....) and
replace it with Unix opendir and fopen calls etc. This will give you
something that speaks SMB on the wire, but does not implement the
filesystem correctly. It will be fast though.
All the best,
Paul
"Belgardt, Wolfgang"
<Wolfgang.Belgardt@hp.co To:
<paul.r.schenk@accenture.com>
m> cc:
<samba@samba.org>
Sent by: Subject: RE: [Samba] Samba
Performance question
samba-admin@lists.samba.
org
06/12/2002 04:51 PM
Hello Paul,
Thanks for your explanations of samba doings in this case.
1) where is samba build the in-memory list? On server or on the client? I
think on the server, right?
1a) All file are 8.3 named files; installed via a NT client
.
2) To your informations: I believe the customer software is searching the
files with wildcards. What is the customer doing? He read on a NT client
music CDs and build from every Track on this CD a 30 sec MP3 file. The
software is automatic create a 8 character long directory and write for
all tracks,of the CD, an mp3 file with an 8.3 name. Only the 3 character
exts is different; to recognize the tracks. The write is not a Problem,
because the time is not relevant for the customer.
Kind Regards / Gr?sse
Wolfgang
-----Original Message-----
From: paul.r.schenk@accenture.com [mailto:paul.r.schenk@accenture.com]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 19:33
To: Belgardt, Wolfgang
Cc: samba@samba.org
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba Performance question
We had the same problem here and I traced it to how Samba pretends to be a
Windows server.
Basically Samba does this:
1) build an in-memory list of a directory's contents, with 8.3 mangled
names
2) When asked for a file, look through the list created in step 1) trying
to find a match. It tries an exact match and then an 8.3 match.
With large numbers of files in directories (I have one with about 650000
files), 1) creates a huge list and 2) takes forever and pegs the CPU at
100%.
In cases with large numbers of files, Windows wins hands-down, because the
8.3-stupid-stuff is handled by the filesystem.
I solved this by making a modified version of a few routines.
1) I make the routines that create the directory list abort after 100 files
and pretend there are no more files.
2) I modified the file opening routine (trans2_readdir, I think) to attempt
to open the file using the filesystem first, bypassing all
case-insenitive-8.3-mangling code. If that fails, I let it try the
look-up-in-a-list method (except for a hard-coded directory where I return
file-not-found if the direct attempt failed).
3) I set 'dont descend' on the big directories, to help users who
mistakenly try to browse the directory with explorer, although mod 1) would
mean they'd only see 100 files anyway.
Making these changes allows my HP9000-D380/2 to outperform a Windows NT 4
Pentium 2 when dealing with directories of over 600000 files. Stock Samba
compiled from source (or the depot from itrc) served files from this
directory at about the rate of 5 min/file, with the CPU pegged at 100%. NT
can handle this in less than 1 second. Now I have over 400 people opening
files in this directory all day, and the CPU doesn't even work up a sweat.
The mods I made break what I understand SMB to be. The broken-ness would
only affect old clients (Win 3.1) and clients that try to open
'AFILE.DOC'
and expect to get 'afile.doc'. Since I control what the client requests,
I
could get around this. YMMV.
Hope this helps. Does anybody know if changes to address this problem are
in Samba 3?
All the best,
Paul
"Belgardt, Wolfgang"
<Wolfgang.Belgardt@hp.co To:
<samba@samba.org>
m> cc:
Sent by: Subject: [Samba] Samba
Performance question
samba-admin@lists.samba.
org
05/12/2002 04:45 PM
Dear all,
I have a difficult Problem with samba 2.2.5, I hope everyone can help me.
My customer has samba 2.2.5 running on a HP Alpha Server ES40 Cluster with
Tru64 V5.1. The share on this Server has 3.1 million files in 16000
directories.
Some one this directories have 45000 files on it.
The problem is: if we try a search a file from this big directory via an
NT Client the response time is to large for the the customer.
He has run an similar application on a NT File server. NT responded after 1
sec and samba need 6 sec.
Can someone explain me what I can do to increase the performance, please?
Kind Regards / Mit freundlichen Gr?ssen
Wolfgang Belgardt
Customer Support Consultant
Hewlett-Packard GmbH
Customer Support
Bonsiepen 5
D-45136 Essen
Phone: ++49 (0) 201 2663 258
Fax: ++49 (0) 201 2663 200
mobil: +49 (0171 3357 256)
E-mail: Wolfgang.Belgardt@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/de
__________________________________________________________________________________
Hewlett-Packard GmbH
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: J?rg Menno Harms (Vorsitzender), J?rgen Banhardt, Wolfram
Fischer,
Rainer Kaczmarczyk, B?rbel Schmidt, Fritz Schuller, Regine Stachelhaus
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Heribert Schmitz
Sitz der Gesellschaft: B?blingen, Amtsgericht B?blingen HRB 4081
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.
hi, On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 02:20:49PM +0100, Dragan Krnic wrote:> > ext2/ext3 manipulate the directory entries using lists > > so if you have a great many files in one directory you > > will see performance issues as you describe. The answer > > to this is to change filesystem - no mean feat with your > > data sizes. Filesystems like XFS and ReiserFS use binary > > trees to manipulate the directory entries and it is a far > > faster way of doing things with crowded directories so > > you should see an improvemnet. > > Migrating to another file system should not be a big headache, if > you have the means (free disk space, tapes). Such a shame ReiserFS > has no ACLs. By far the best for such situations.just for the record: all the recent SuSE-versions ship with acls on xfs,ext2/ext3,jfs and guess what: reiserfs. on SuSE Linux 8.1 you have to enable it though and recompile your kernel. cheers, guenther -- Guenther Deschner gd@suse.de SuSE Linux AG GnuPG: 8EE11688 Berliner Str. 27 phone: +49 (0) 30 / 430944778 D-13507 Berlin fax: +49 (0) 30 / 43732804 -------------- 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/20021209/8476a76c/attachment.bin
You made my day, Guenther. I believed what they posted on bestbits that they are still looking for someone to patch Reiser. Have you actually tried it and it worked? -- On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:56:31 Guenther Deschner wrote:>hi, >> Such a shame ReiserFS has no ACLs. >> By far the best for such situations. > >just for the record: > >all the recent SuSE-versions ship with acls on xfs,ext2/ext3,jfs and >guess what: reiserfs. on SuSE Linux 8.1 you have to enable it though and >recompile your kernel._____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus
Possibly Parallel Threads
- RE: samba smbd version 2.2.12 HP CIFS Server A.01.11.04 does hang if start in a HP serviceguard configuration
- Re: samba smbd version 2.2.12 HP CIFS Server A.01.11.04 does hang if start in a HP serviceguard configuration
- Use of MathJax (or something similar) in .Rd files
- LMTP crashing heavily for my 2.2.36 installation
- Use of MathJax (or something similar) in .Rd files