Hi, I have a small network with 12-15 users. In an effort to start migrating to a client/server architechure instead of a peer-to-peer, I have removed Windows 98 from a Intel PII 600 mhz / 512 MB SDRAM / 3Com FastEtherlink NIC and installed Linux 2.2.17. I configured Samba to share files to our Windows 98 clients. The write performance of Samba seems to be much slower (on the order of 200% slower) than Windows 98 on the same hardware. I have read the documentation on the options to improve performance listed in Using Samba and in the docs directory. I am unable to find an option to bring the performance on par with Windows 98 when opening Microsoft Access databases from the shared drive. Does anyone know of an option I can change or have any other pointers I can use to try to improve the performance? Thanks for any help you can provide. Kim Payne CiRViS, Inc.
Do you have "socket options = TCP_NODELAY" in your [global] section? Hard to troubleshoot without a snapshot of your current smb.conf [global] section... /tom --On Tuesday, October 31, 2000 10:40 AM -0500 Kim Payne <kpayne@cirvisinc.com> wrote:> Hi, > > I have a small network with 12-15 users. In an effort to start migrating > to a client/server architechure instead of a peer-to-peer, I have removed > Windows 98 from a Intel PII 600 mhz / 512 MB SDRAM / 3Com FastEtherlink > NIC and installed Linux 2.2.17. I configured Samba to share files to our > Windows 98 clients. > > The write performance of Samba seems to be much slower (on the order of > 200% slower) than Windows 98 on the same hardware. I have read the > documentation on the options to improve performance listed in Using Samba > and in the docs directory. I am unable to find an option to bring the > performance on par with Windows 98 when opening Microsoft Access databases > from the shared drive. > > Does anyone know of an option I can change or have any other pointers I > can use to try to improve the performance? Thanks for any help you can > provide. > > Kim Payne > CiRViS, Inc. > >
> -----Original Message----- > From: samba-admin@us5.samba.org [mailto:samba-admin@us5.samba.org]On > Behalf Of Tom Syroid > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 11:17 AM > To: samba@samba.org > Subject: Re: Samba performance compared to Windows 98 > > > Do you have "socket options = TCP_NODELAY" in your [global] section?Yes, that option is there. I have also tried other options dealing with sockets, but none improve performance greatly.> > Hard to troubleshoot without a snapshot of your current smb.conf [global] > section...I forgot to include that...oops. Here is the current [global] section. [global] workgroup = CRVDOMAIN server string = Samba Server %v on (%L) netbios name = CRVSRV1 guest ok = no dead time = 0 printcap name = /etc/printcap load printers = no log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m max log size = 50 security = user encrypt passwords = yes smb passwd file = /usr/local/samba/lib/smbpasswd null passwords = yes username map = /usr/local/samba/lib/smbusers socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_RCVBUF=65536 SO_SNDBUF=65536 read raw = yes write raw = yes getwd cache = yes read size = 1024 wins support = yes dns proxy = no preserve case = yes short preserve case = yes default case = upper Thanks, Kim> > /tom > > --On Tuesday, October 31, 2000 10:40 AM -0500 Kim Payne > <kpayne@cirvisinc.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I have a small network with 12-15 users. In an effort to > start migrating > > to a client/server architechure instead of a peer-to-peer, I > have removed > > Windows 98 from a Intel PII 600 mhz / 512 MB SDRAM / 3Com FastEtherlink > > NIC and installed Linux 2.2.17. I configured Samba to share > files to our > > Windows 98 clients. > > > > The write performance of Samba seems to be much slower (on > the order of > > 200% slower) than Windows 98 on the same hardware. I have read the > > documentation on the options to improve performance listed in > Using Samba > > and in the docs directory. I am unable to find an option to bring the > > performance on par with Windows 98 when opening Microsoft > Access databases > > from the shared drive. > > > > Does anyone know of an option I can change or have any > other pointers I > > can use to try to improve the performance? Thanks for any > help you can > > provide. > > > > Kim Payne > > CiRViS, Inc. > > > > > > > > > >
I've had exactly the same problem - opening a 6 MB Access file from the Samba server is an order of magnitude slower than opening the same file from a Windows 95 (!) shared server. File copies are much faster from the Samba server, as expected. Is there something about opening an Access file that makes it so much slower than a simple file copy? Steve McClary At 10:40 AM 10/31/2000 -0500, Kim Payne wrote:>Hi, > > I have a small network with 12-15 users. In an effort to start > migrating >to a client/server architechure instead of a peer-to-peer, I have removed >Windows 98 from a Intel PII 600 mhz / 512 MB SDRAM / 3Com FastEtherlink NIC >and installed Linux 2.2.17. I configured Samba to share files to our >Windows 98 clients. > > The write performance of Samba seems to be much slower (on the > order of >200% slower) than Windows 98 on the same hardware. I have read the >documentation on the options to improve performance listed in Using Samba >and in the docs directory. I am unable to find an option to bring the >performance on par with Windows 98 when opening Microsoft Access databases >from the shared drive. > > Does anyone know of an option I can change or have any other > pointers I can >use to try to improve the performance? Thanks for any help you can provide. > >Kim Payne >CiRViS, Inc.
forgot to send to the list. -----Original Message----- From: Kim Payne [mailto:kpayne@cirvisinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 6:26 PM To: Steve McClary Subject: RE: Samba performance compared to Windows 98> -----Original Message----- > From: samba-admin@us5.samba.org [mailto:samba-admin@us5.samba.org]On > Behalf Of Steve McClary > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 5:22 PM > To: samba@us5.samba.org > Subject: Re: Samba performance compared to Windows 98 > > > > I've had exactly the same problem - opening a 6 MB Access file from the > Samba server is an order of magnitude slower than opening the same file > from a Windows 95 (!) shared server. File copies are much faster from the > Samba server, as expected. Is there something about opening an > Access file > that makes it so much slower than a simple file copy?I know Access keeps track of who has the file open by writing to a .ldb file. It creates the file when the database is first opened by someone and deletes it when the last user closes it. Knowing Microsoft, they probably use special open and close routines to handle the database. It's hard to say exactly what happens without tracing the traffic when you open the database.
Try the MS TCP/IP patch, since 95/98 has a broken TCP stack. But usually that helps with slow machines only. My network runs fine without the patch. And don't let yourself fool by the cache (oplocks), since it might show higher transfer rates due to caching in windows. Average should be: 10Mbit - 750-800kbit/sec (hub) 100Mbit 3,5 Mbit/sec (hub) switch might give better results> I have a small network with 12-15 users. In an effort to start migrating >to a client/server architechure instead of a peer-to-peer, I have removed >Windows 98 from a Intel PII 600 mhz / 512 MB SDRAM / 3Com FastEtherlink NIC >and installed Linux 2.2.17. I configured Samba to share files to our >Windows 98 clients.> The write performance of Samba seems to be much slower (on the order of >200% slower) than Windows 98 on the same hardware. I have read the >documentation on the options to improve performance listed in Using Samba >and in the docs directory. I am unable to find an option to bring the >performance on par with Windows 98 when opening Microsoft Access databases >from the shared drive.Johann Zuschlag zuschlag@online.de
Did you try to disable oplocks on the mdb and/or the ldb files? In Using Samba I've found suggestion about a possible performance hit on database files with multiple clients... veto oplocks files = /*.mdb/*.MDB/*.ldb/*.LDB/ Bye Marco -- Marco Bizzarri - Responsabile Tecnico - Icube S.r.l. Sede: Via Ridolfi 15 - 56124 Pisa (PI), Italia E-mail: m.bizzarri@icube.it WWW: www.icube.it Tel: (+39) 050 97 02 07 Fax: (+39) 050 31 36 588
I saw you're using nic 3c905C. Can you take a look at the /sbin/ifconfig output for that card? If there're collisions (more than 1 every 10000) I think you've a problem either on the card or on the hub/switch Also beware of 3com 3c905, since there're different model which are all labelled as 3c905C, but actually have different chip. For the ide performance, did you try the hdparm ? You could start with hdparm -v /dev/hda to see what are the settings of your disk. Experiment (but on a non production system before) with hdparm -u1 -d1 -c1 -X33 /dev/hda and see the results. This could lead to system hang. Bye Marco -- Marco Bizzarri - Responsabile Tecnico - Icube S.r.l. Sede: Via Ridolfi 15 - 56124 Pisa (PI), Italia E-mail: m.bizzarri@icube.it WWW: www.icube.it Tel: (+39) 050 97 02 07 Fax: (+39) 050 31 36 588
Hi Tim, lets first discuss your results. I don't think the patch would help anyway.>For a 2 meg file, Win98 get = 13.55 MB/s (odd I know) Win98 put = 5.82 MB/s.Samba get = 11.87 MB/s Samba put = 5.03 MB/s. The odd value is NOT the network transfer rate. Its just the cache transfer rate. It is like this: The first time you copy (get) the file it is cached in the local memory. The second time nothing is copied over the network, it's just emptying the local cache. Maximum transfer rate on 100Mbit network (using a switch) could be about 6.5-7MB/s. Period. (In fact I meant KB/s and MB/s with my numbers in my former mail, typo :-) ) So both get rates are higher than possible due to caching. For testing you should switch off the local cache by using oplocks=no. Check the results.>For a 21 meg file, Win98 get = 5.56 MB/s Win98 put = 4.64 MB/s.Samba get = 7.74 MB/s Samba put = 3.04 MB/s. Here Samba seems to be a little faster than Win98 during get. No caching to be seen (or just a little?). Try copying a second time and transfer rate will speed up (depending on RAM). In fact most linux servers are sligthly optimized for get (6:4 or so?). But you could change that. Another point is, if you use Netbeui for a pure windows connection, you get faster transfer rates. What were you using? With tcp/ip you are tunneling SMB thru tcp/ip which is slower. On the other hand pure tcp/ip is faster. Samba uses tcp/ip only. Usually you get the maximum using ftp. Did you try to ftp? Hope that helps a little bit. Anyway your transfer rates are not 200% slower. Usualy a Samba machine should have the same rates like an NT server, or better. regards Johann Johann Zuschlag zuschlag@online.de