Hello... Currently in the process of upgrading Samba v2.0.10 to Samba v3.0.x, while conducting some minimal testing, it turns-out that Samba v3.0.x is performing slower than Samba v2.0.10. Set-ups: A. Samba v3.0.x --> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380). B. Samba v2.0.x --> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 (32bit, Dell T7400) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380). C. Samba v2.0.x --> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Solaris8 (Sun V240) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached Solaris8 (Sun V240). Trails: I've tested both Samba versions using the same smb.conf files and have also tested with all global defaults (except those required). Played around with Socket Options & Max Xmit sizes but no luck, it's still slower. This doesn't sound accurate, shouldn't the Samba v3.0.x be faster than Samba v2.0.10? What config options/settings should I be looking at? Regards, Ashis
Hallo, ashis.v.purbhoo, Du (ashis.v.purbhoo) meintest am 17.07.08:> Currently in the process of upgrading Samba v2.0.10 to Samba v3.0.x, > while conducting some minimal testing, it turns-out that Samba v3.0.x > is performing slower than Samba v2.0.10.> Set-ups: > A. Samba v3.0.x --> > Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 > (64bit, HP DL380) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another > SAN attached Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380).> B. Samba v2.0.x --> > Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 > (32bit, Dell T7400) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from > another SAN attached Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380).Maybe a change to cifs instead of nfs helps - I have seen that in a school in the neighnourhood. Viele Gruesse! Helmut
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 09:47:19AM -0500, ashis.v.purbhoo@exxonmobil.com wrote:> > Hello... > > Currently in the process of upgrading Samba v2.0.10 to Samba v3.0.x, while > conducting some minimal testing, it turns-out that Samba v3.0.x is > performing slower than Samba v2.0.10. > > Set-ups: > A. Samba v3.0.x --> > Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, > HP DL380) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached > Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380). > > B. Samba v2.0.x --> > Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 (32bit, > Dell T7400) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached > Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380). > > C. Samba v2.0.x --> > Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Solaris8 (Sun V240) > which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached Solaris8 > (Sun V240). > > Trails: > I've tested both Samba versions using the same smb.conf files and have also > tested with all global defaults (except those required). Played around > with Socket Options & Max Xmit sizes but no luck, it's still slower. This > doesn't sound accurate, shouldn't the Samba v3.0.x be faster than Samba > v2.0.10? What config options/settings should I be looking at?None. Very likely it is the utimes(2) calls that we have to do on each write for correctness. Can you verify that with sniffs? I will have to dig it up, but there is a module somewhere that gets rid of those, sacrificing a bit of compatibility. BTW, exporting an NFS imported directory is a REALLY, REALLY bad idea. Why don't you just install Samba on the NFS server? Volker -------------- 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/20080717/c2aa731b/attachment.bin
Helmut Hullen wrote:> Hallo, ashis.v.purbhoo, > > Du (ashis.v.purbhoo) meintest am 17.07.08: > > >> Currently in the process of upgrading Samba v2.0.10 to Samba v3.0.x, >> while conducting some minimal testing, it turns-out that Samba v3.0.x >> is performing slower than Samba v2.0.10. > >> Set-ups: >> A. Samba v3.0.x --> >> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 >> (64bit, HP DL380) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another >> SAN attached Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380). > >> B. Samba v2.0.x --> >> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 >> (32bit, Dell T7400) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from >> another SAN attached Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380). > > Maybe a change to cifs instead of nfs helps - I have seen that in a > school in the neighnourhood. > > Viele Gruesse! > HelmutSamba 2.* default was "strict locking = no", and 3.* is "strict locking = yes". If you have "strict locking" set over an NFS mount, it will be very slow. Eric Roseme