Hi, I recently installed a new samba server to replace an older Novell
machine. Now, we are having performance issues. I have installed many
samba servers, and have not run into this problem before. Some background
info:
The server is an Athlon 1800+ w/ 512MB DDR RAM. We are using software raid
on 80GB IDE ATA 100 drives with the VIA 82C3XX chipset. When mirroring the
drives, we usually get 30+MB/sec. Filesystem is ext3. Kernel is 2.4.18.
Distro is Debian 3.0 and samba is 2.2.3a-6 for Debian.
smb.conf:
[global]
printing = bsd
printcap name = /etc/printcap
load printers = yes
use client driver = yes
guest account = nobody
add user script = /usr/sbin/useradd -d /dev/null -g 100 -s /bin/false -M
%u
domain admin group = @users
security = user
workgroup = HHS
domain logons = yes
logon script = startup.bat
server string = %h server (Samba %v)
syslog only = no
syslog = 0;
socket options = IPTOS_LOWDELAY TCP_NODELAY SO_SNDBUF=4096 SO_RCVBUF=4096
encrypt passwords = yes
wins support = no
os level = 99
domain master = yes
local master = yes
preferred master = yes
name resolve order = lmhosts host wins bcast
dns proxy = no
preserve case = yes
short preserve case = yes
unix password sync = true
passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u
passwd chat = *Enter\snew\sUNIX\spassword:* %n\n
max log size = 1000
[netlogon]
path = /etc/samba/netlogon
browseable = no
read only = yes
[sys]
comment = Shared files
path = /home/shared
writeable = yes
op locks = no
browseable = yes
force directory mode = 0777
force create mode = 0777
public = yes
guest ok = no
[homes]
comment = Home Directories
browseable = no
read only = no
create mask = 0770
directory mask = 0770
[printers]
guest ok = yes
printable = yes
print command = /usr/bin/lpr -U%U@%M -P%p -r %s
lpq command = /usr/bin/lpq -U%U@%M -P%p
lprm command = /usr/bin/lprm -U%U@%M -P%p %j
queuepause command = /usr/sbin/lpc -U%U@%M -P%p stop
queueresume command = /usr/sbin/lpc -U%U@%M -P%p start
path = /tmp
[cdrom1]
comment = Samba server's CD-ROM
writable = no
locking = no
path = /cdrom1
public = yes
preexec = /bin/mount /cdrom1
postexec = /bin/umount /cdrom1
[cdrom2]
comment = Samba server's CD-ROM
writable = no
locking = no
path = /cdrom2
public = yes
preexec = /bin/mount /cdrom2
postexec = /bin/umount /cdrom2
Now, the problem...I'm getting very poor performance. The machine we
replaced was a Pentium I 200 with 64MB of RAM, and it was faster than this
thing. All of my client machines are Win98 SE. The biggest problem is
when the executable itself is on the server. If it is, the program loads
VERY slowly. I have loaded Netstat to look at the network throughput. When
I am loading an EXE from the server, my throughput is very low. I made a
300 MB test file to copy back and forth across the network. On each
machine, I'm getting about 35Mbit. I can copy the same file to two machines
at the same time and get 35Mbit on both. I have not tested three at a time
because this was enough to show me that the network was not the bottleneck.
This network is 100Mbit on a switch. When copying the files, the client
machine's processor always shows 100%. When loading programs from the
server the machines also show 100%. BUT, I get the same performance from a
550 Mhz PIII machine, a 1000Mhz Athlon machine, and an 1800+ Athlon XP.
Also, like I said, the Novell server makes the clients much faster. I have
eliminated all the protocol traffic that I can -- all machines are on
TCP/IP only. I can put the EXEs on the client machines and just read the
data from the server for improved performace, but it is still not as good
as it should be (or as good as the old server).
Now for the question....does anyone know of anything I can do to improve
performance? Or do I need to go back and install Novell on the new machine
(I really don't want to)?
Thanks in advance.
Trey Nolen
Very strange, Feel not alone, however - I too have some performance concerns : A Samba 2.0.8 Slackware 7 Machine was working fine for nigh on a year, and then it started to degrade, to the point where an app that used network database which used to come up almost instantaneously started taking 5 seconds. Annoying, as the customer had got used to the speed. Also on a 100Mb Switch, with only 6 client machines. As a last effort we upgraded to 2.2.4 and it felt much faster, however, I did some testing before and after the upgrade : Before the upgrade, a file transfer from a client (50MB random data) was taking 50 Seconds and not utilising all the bandwidth. Before the upgrade, a file transfer to a client (50MB random data) was taking 100 Seconds and not utilising all the bandwidth. After the upgrade, a file transfer from a client (50MB random data) was taking 25 Seconds and not utilising all the bandwidth. After the upgrade, a file transfer to a client (50MB random data) was taking 50 Seconds and not utilising all the bandwidth. Before and after the upgrade, and ftp transfer of the same file took 20 seconds either way. This really got me stumped, but as the speed was near normal again, I have left the site, but would like to know if this double time transfers is usual or if there is anything we can do to find out why. Martyn At 09:34 AM 6/11/02 -0500, Trey Nolen wrote:>Now, the problem...I'm getting very poor performance. The machine we >replaced was a Pentium I 200 with 64MB of RAM, and it was faster than this >thing. All of my client machines are Win98 SE. The biggest problem is >when the executable itself is on the server. If it is, the program loads >VERY slowly. I have loaded Netstat to look at the network throughput. When >I am loading an EXE from the server, my throughput is very low. I made a >300 MB test file to copy back and forth across the network. On each >machine, I'm getting about 35Mbit. I can copy the same file to two machines >at the same time and get 35Mbit on both. I have not tested three at a time >because this was enough to show me that the network was not the bottleneck. >This network is 100Mbit on a switch. When copying the files, the client >machine's processor always shows 100%. When loading programs from the >server the machines also show 100%. BUT, I get the same performance from a >550 Mhz PIII machine, a 1000Mhz Athlon machine, and an 1800+ Athlon XP. >Also, like I said, the Novell server makes the clients much faster. I have >eliminated all the protocol traffic that I can -- all machines are on >TCP/IP only. I can put the EXEs on the client machines and just read the >data from the server for improved performace, but it is still not as good >as it should be (or as good as the old server). > >Now for the question....does anyone know of anything I can do to improve >performance? Or do I need to go back and install Novell on the new machine >(I really don't want to)? > > >Thanks in advance. > >Trey Nolen > > > >-- >To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the >instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/sambaMartyn Ranyard Free Software Advocate icq - 122500800 irc - Joran on OPN msn - ranyardm@hotmail.com y! - ranyardm e - ranyardm@lineone.net
I' m also testing version 2.2.4 with ACL and winbind support on EXT3 with filesystem ACLs. On a DELL dual PIII Xeon 900 MHz with 2 GB RAM RAID 5 it took about 4,5 minutes to copy the folder "I386" (3.300 files, 77 MB) of the NT 4.0 installation cdrom with ACLs enabled from the local drive to the fileserver. Without ACL it took 90 seconds. On a "simple" PC with a U160 SCSI drive with samba 2.2.0 it takes Also the configuration option "hide unreadable" is responsible for the performance. Therefore I disabled ACL (not compiled in), set "create mask", "directory mask" to "777" , use default ACLs and let the filesystem set the access rights appropreate. I get the same result on mandrake 8.2 with XFS an samba 2.2.3.a with ACL enabled. -----Original Message----- From: Martyn Ranyard [SMTP:ranyardm@lineone.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 4:50 PM To: Trey Nolen Cc: samba@lists.samba.org Subject: Re: [Samba] samba performance issue Very strange, Feel not alone, however - I too have some performance concerns : A Samba 2.0.8 Slackware 7 Machine was working fine for nigh on a year, and then it started to degrade, to the point where an app that used network database which used to come up almost instantaneously started taking 5 seconds. Annoying, as the customer had got used to the speed. Also on a 100Mb Switch, with only 6 client machines. As a last effort we upgraded to 2.2.4 and it felt much faster, however, I did some testing before and after the upgrade : Before the upgrade, a file transfer from a client (50MB random data) was taking 50 Seconds and not utilising all the bandwidth. Before the upgrade, a file transfer to a client (50MB random data) was taking 100 Seconds and not utilising all the bandwidth. After the upgrade, a file transfer from a client (50MB random data) was taking 25 Seconds and not utilising all the bandwidth. After the upgrade, a file transfer to a client (50MB random data) was taking 50 Seconds and not utilising all the bandwidth. Before and after the upgrade, and ftp transfer of the same file took 20 seconds either way. This really got me stumped, but as the speed was near normal again, I have left the site, but would like to know if this double time transfers is usual or if there is anything we can do to find out why. Martyn At 09:34 AM 6/11/02 -0500, Trey Nolen wrote:>Now, the problem...I'm getting very poor performance. The machine we >replaced was a Pentium I 200 with 64MB of RAM, and it was faster than this >thing. All of my client machines are Win98 SE. The biggest problem is >when the executable itself is on the server. If it is, the program loads >VERY slowly. I have loaded Netstat to look at the network throughput. When >I am loading an EXE from the server, my throughput is very low. I made a >300 MB test file to copy back and forth across the network. On each >machine, I'm getting about 35Mbit. I can copy the same file to twomachines>at the same time and get 35Mbit on both. I have not tested three at a time >because this was enough to show me that the network was not thebottleneck.>This network is 100Mbit on a switch. When copying the files, the client >machine's processor always shows 100%. When loading programs from the >server the machines also show 100%. BUT, I get the same performance froma>550 Mhz PIII machine, a 1000Mhz Athlon machine, and an 1800+ Athlon XP. >Also, like I said, the Novell server makes the clients much faster. I have >eliminated all the protocol traffic that I can -- all machines are on >TCP/IP only. I can put the EXEs on the client machines and just read the >data from the server for improved performace, but it is still not as good >as it should be (or as good as the old server). > >Now for the question....does anyone know of anything I can do to improve >performance? Or do I need to go back and install Novell on the new machine >(I really don't want to)? > > >Thanks in advance. > >Trey Nolen > > > >-- >To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the >instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/sambaMartyn Ranyard Free Software Advocate icq - 122500800 irc - Joran on OPN msn - ranyardm@hotmail.com y! - ranyardm e - ranyardm@lineone.net -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
I'm running samba 2.2.5 on gentoo linux 1.2 (kernel 2.4.19). I'm having extremely poor performance when using windows 2000 clients(about 300kbit/s), but when I connect to the same machine with smbmount from linux the transfer rates are ok(about 25000kBit/s). Anyone know what could be the problem? .thanks Onni Rautanen Support Specialist TietoEnator Corporation Processing & Network Support Nuolialantie 62, P.O. Box 197 FIN-33101 Tampere, Finland mobile +358 40 831 0742