Hi, We have been having a few problems with a M$ Access DB held on a Samba server Samba version: samba-2.2.4-2N1 We have rebuilt a new server, and transferred the database over to the new box, along with word/excel docs etc. Everything is working fine, except the access database, which is running very very slowly (can be over a minute to open a record). Details are a little sketchy, but it would seem that when the new server is being used, one workstation has reasonable access speeds, but subsequent workstations are slow - although this could be a 'user diagnosis syndrome' ;) The access binary is held locally on the workstations. If you transfer the database back to the old samba server, it runs fine. The two servers are running the same version of samba, same Kernel (2.4.18). The workstations are Windows98, doing domain logons to the Samba server. The only difference I can see between the old and new servers, is the new server has two raided (mirror) IDE drives, the old server is a single drive box. There are no errors on the NICS, oplocks are off for *.mdb and *.ldb and tcpdump shosw data flowing consistently between the server and the workstation. The Load Ave on the box is near enough 0.0. For the moment, I have put them back on the old server. Any help would be gratefully received - bit stumped on this one! -- Harry Mills DDI:01749 812100 Educational Development Manager Fax:01749 812749 Navaho Technologies Main Office: 0870 7034015 http://www.navaho.co.uk/
I'll let someone with more knowledge than I get into the RAID buffer discussions but just wanted to make sure you had the same smb.conf on the two machines? And therefore had oplocks turned off? A recent posting which you might have already seen: 1. Always run the Access database application, (Forms, code, queries, ...) on a client workstation and have the back-end data on the server. The application container links to the shared tables on the server. 2. Oplocks = no 3. Kernel Oplocks = no 4. Level2 Oplocks = no 5. Blocking Locks = yes 6. Locking = yes 7. Strict Locking = no 8. Share Modes = yes Success will be improved if you follow the pessimistic locking model for most of your data access. This means that the edited record is always locked. You should do this regardless of whether you use Windows or Samba on your back end server. This also applies to point number 1. HTH Noel -----Original Message----- From: Harry Mills [mailto:harry@navaho.co.uk] Sent: 28 October 2002 08:57 To: samba@lists.samba.org Subject: [Samba] MS Access and RAID Hi, We have been having a few problems with a M$ Access DB held on a Samba server Samba version: samba-2.2.4-2N1 We have rebuilt a new server, and transferred the database over to the new box, along with word/excel docs etc. Everything is working fine, except the access database, which is running very very slowly (can be over a minute to open a record). Details are a little sketchy, but it would seem that when the new server is being used, one workstation has reasonable access speeds, but subsequent workstations are slow - although this could be a 'user diagnosis syndrome' ;) The access binary is held locally on the workstations. If you transfer the database back to the old samba server, it runs fine. The two servers are running the same version of samba, same Kernel (2.4.18). The workstations are Windows98, doing domain logons to the Samba server. The only difference I can see between the old and new servers, is the new server has two raided (mirror) IDE drives, the old server is a single drive box. There are no errors on the NICS, oplocks are off for *.mdb and *.ldb and tcpdump shosw data flowing consistently between the server and the workstation. The Load Ave on the box is near enough 0.0. For the moment, I have put them back on the old server. Any help would be gratefully received - bit stumped on this one! -- Harry Mills DDI:01749 812100 Educational Development Manager Fax:01749 812749 Navaho Technologies Main Office: 0870 7034015 http://www.navaho.co.uk/ -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba --- 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
Harry, I can't see it being the RAID either. Have you checked the network basics? I had a problem just the other week with very slow transfers and eventually discovered lots of carrier errors on the NIC and traced it back to a dodgy switch port in our Cisco 2940. Just do an 'ifconfig' and make sure you have a decent network connection. I notice that you describe a slowness in your original posting so even if ifconfig is not showing errors I would try a new cable and switch port and also maybe try some simple large file tranfers and see if there is noticeable difference between the two servers. Could also be the NIC itself of course. If the networking checks out fully and the Samba configs and versions are identical then I would try enabling the oplocks anyway and see if that helps. Hopefully :() you will discover it is a networking issue.... HTH Cheers, Noel -----Original Message----- From: Harry Mills [mailto:harry@navaho.co.uk] Sent: 29 October 2002 10:48 To: Noel Kelly Subject: RE: [Samba] MS Access and RAID Just a quick note to say thanks for your prompt response to my posting yesterday. So far, you are the only respondant ;) I am in a bit of a pickle, because the Access DB is live, and people are kicking up a fuss ;( I have read through the posting(s) you mentioned. Thing that is worrying me, is the fact that the old and new boxes are identical - Kernel, Samba version, smb.conf, and Hardware (Cobalt Qube) - the only difference is the twin HD doing Raid. I suppose the best bet it to rebuild the new box as a single drive machine, and start again! TBH, though, I just cannot see it being RAID, the load average is virutally 0.0. I have one question for you...... I know access is a broken database, when shared across a network. Is it better to simply say - put the DB back on a Win98 Workstation, and share it from there? The problem is, their 'Database experts' simply say - its not us, its Navaho. Thanks again Regards Harry On Mon, 28 Oct, Noel Kelly wrote:> I'll let someone with more knowledge than I get into the RAID buffer > discussions but just wanted to make sure you had the same smb.conf on the > two machines? And therefore had oplocks turned off? > > A recent posting which you might have already seen: > > 1. Always run the Access database application, (Forms, code, > queries, ...) on a client workstation and have the back-end data on the > server. The application container links to the shared tables on theserver.> > 2. Oplocks = no > 3. Kernel Oplocks = no > 4. Level2 Oplocks = no > 5. Blocking Locks = yes > 6. Locking = yes > 7. Strict Locking = no > 8. Share Modes = yes > > Success will be improved if you follow the pessimistic locking model for > most of your data access. This means that the edited record is always > locked. You should do this regardless of whether you use Windows or Samba > on your back end server. This also applies to point number 1. > > HTH > Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Mills [mailto:harry@navaho.co.uk] > Sent: 28 October 2002 08:57 > To: samba@lists.samba.org > Subject: [Samba] MS Access and RAID > > > Hi, > > We have been having a few problems with a M$ Access DB held on a Samba > server > > Samba version: samba-2.2.4-2N1 > > We have rebuilt a new server, and transferred the database over to the new > box, along with word/excel docs etc. Everything is working fine, exceptthe> access database, which is running very very slowly (can be over a minuteto> open a record). > Details are a little sketchy, but it would seem that when the new serveris> being used, one workstation has reasonable access speeds, but subsequent > workstations are slow - although this could be a 'user diagnosis syndrome' > ;) > > The access binary is held locally on the workstations. > If you transfer the database back to the old samba server, it runs fine. > The two servers are running the same version of samba, same Kernel(2.4.18).> The workstations are Windows98, doing domain logons to the Samba server. > > The only difference I can see between the old and new servers, is the new > server has two raided (mirror) IDE drives, the old server is a singledrive> box. There are no errors on the NICS, oplocks are off for *.mdb and *.ldb > and > tcpdump shosw data flowing consistently between the server and the > workstation. The Load Ave on the box is near enough 0.0. > > For the moment, I have put them back on the old server. > > Any help would be gratefully received - bit stumped on this one! > --- > 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 >-- Harry Mills DDI:01749 812100 Educational Development Manager Fax:01749 812749 Navaho Technologies Main Office: 0870 7034015 http://www.navaho.co.uk/ --- 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
On Mon, 28 Oct, Noel Kelly wrote:> I'll let someone with more knowledge than I get into the RAID buffer > discussions but just wanted to make sure you had the same smb.conf on the > two machines? And therefore had oplocks turned off?Yep, identical smb.conf files. The boxes are identical in both config and hardware (Cobalt Qube 3,) Only difference is, the new box has two ide drives with software raid, the old box doesn't. The boxes are not standard Cobalt builds btw. I am sure there are many people out there who come across this situation:- The people who wrote the database application say 'it can't possibly be Access, and we have never seen these problems before, it must be your samba server', or ' Well it works on a windows share' ;) Refering to the posting you mentioned: The code files, and MSAccess binary are held locally on the workstations, the database data is held on the samba share, with oplocks off. Checked the smb.conf, which follows the recommendations from the post below. Then thing that is puzzling me is that if I copy the DB back to the old server, kill samba on the new server, start samba on the old, and reboot the workstations, it all starts working again - fast. I suppose the next step is to rebuild the new server, as a non-raided box, and test again!> A recent posting which you might have already seen: > > 1. Always run the Access database application, (Forms, code, > queries, ...) on a client workstation and have the back-end data on the > server. The application container links to the shared tables on the server. > > 2. Oplocks = no > 3. Kernel Oplocks = no > 4. Level2 Oplocks = no > 5. Blocking Locks = yes > 6. Locking = yes > 7. Strict Locking = no > 8. Share Modes = yes > > Success will be improved if you follow the pessimistic locking model for > most of your data access. This means that the edited record is always > locked. You should do this regardless of whether you use Windows or Samba > on your back end server. This also applies to point number 1. > > HTH > Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Mills [mailto:harry@navaho.co.uk] > Sent: 28 October 2002 08:57 > To: samba@lists.samba.org > Subject: [Samba] MS Access and RAID > > > Hi, > > We have been having a few problems with a M$ Access DB held on a Samba > server > > Samba version: samba-2.2.4-2N1 > > We have rebuilt a new server, and transferred the database over to the new > box, along with word/excel docs etc. Everything is working fine, except the > access database, which is running very very slowly (can be over a minute to > open a record). > Details are a little sketchy, but it would seem that when the new server is > being used, one workstation has reasonable access speeds, but subsequent > workstations are slow - although this could be a 'user diagnosis syndrome' > ;) > > The access binary is held locally on the workstations. > If you transfer the database back to the old samba server, it runs fine. > The two servers are running the same version of samba, same Kernel (2.4.18). > The workstations are Windows98, doing domain logons to the Samba server. > > The only difference I can see between the old and new servers, is the new > server has two raided (mirror) IDE drives, the old server is a single drive > box. There are no errors on the NICS, oplocks are off for *.mdb and *.ldb > and > tcpdump shosw data flowing consistently between the server and the > workstation. The Load Ave on the box is near enough 0.0. > > For the moment, I have put them back on the old server. > > Any help would be gratefully received - bit stumped on this one!-- Harry Mills DDI:01749 812100 Educational Development Manager Fax:01749 812749 Navaho Technologies Main Office: 0870 7034015 http://www.navaho.co.uk/
On Tue, 29 Oct, Noel Kelly wrote:> Harry, > > I can't see it being the RAID either. > > Have you checked the network basics? I had a problem just the other week > with very slow transfers and eventually discovered lots of carrier errors on > the NIC and traced it back to a dodgy switch port in our Cisco 2940. Just > do an 'ifconfig' and make sure you have a decent network connection. I > notice that you describe a slowness in your original posting so even if > ifconfig is not showing errors I would try a new cable and switch port and > also maybe try some simple large file tranfers and see if there is > noticeable difference between the two servers. Could also be the NIC > itself > of course.Yes, have thought about that. ifconfig yields _no_ error of any type :(. I am considering the possiblilty of a faulty NIC. We have had lots of fun with nic related problems b4 (Not samba related), however, word documents, file copying etc, is all very fast. Perhaps there is something special about the way Access accesses its data ;)> If the networking checks out fully and the Samba configs and versions are > identical then I would try enabling the oplocks anyway and see if that > helps. Hopefully :() you will discover it is a networking issue....That would be good - now, just have to work out how to drive 200 miles to play with some network cables ;) Cheers H> HTH > Cheers, > Noel > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Mills [mailto:harry@navaho.co.uk] > Sent: 29 October 2002 10:48 > To: Noel Kelly > Subject: RE: [Samba] MS Access and RAID > > > Just a quick note to say thanks for your prompt response to my posting > yesterday. So far, you are the only respondant ;) > > I am in a bit of a pickle, because the Access DB is live, and people are > kicking up a fuss ;( > > I have read through the posting(s) you mentioned. Thing that is worrying me, > is > the fact that the old and new boxes are identical - Kernel, Samba version, > smb.conf, and Hardware (Cobalt Qube) - the only difference is the twin HD > doing > Raid. I suppose the best bet it to rebuild the new box as a single drive > machine, and start again! TBH, though, I just cannot see it being RAID, the > load average is virutally 0.0. > > I have one question for you...... > > I know access is a broken database, when shared across a network. Is it > better > to simply say - put the DB back on a Win98 Workstation, and share it from > there? > > The problem is, their 'Database experts' simply say - its not us, its samba-- Harry Mills DDI:01749 812100 Educational Development Manager Fax:01749 812749 Navaho Technologies Main Office: 0870 7034015 http://www.navaho.co.uk/