samba - Aug 2017 - extremely low performance on Samba 4.2.14-Debian

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:23:34 +0200
Emmanuel Florac <eflorac at intellique.com> wrote:
> Le Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:12:27 +0100
> Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> écrivait:
> 
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:51:42 +0200
> > "L.P.H. van Belle via samba" <samba at
lists.samba.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hai, 
> > > 
> > > Thank you for reporting this back. Very welkom and good to heard
> > > you fixed it. 
> > >   
> > > > It would be interesting to know which parameters absolutely 
> > > > kill performance this way!  
> > > 
> > > Yes, that would be great to know which parameters killed the
> > > performance. Do you have exports of the old config and the
current
> > > config? You could diff them and then maybe a dev can tell us,
> > > since i've see this question more now. A diff is at least
some
> > > extra info. 
> > 
> > My moneys on these two lines:
> > 
> >      winbind enum users  = yes
> >      winbind enum groups = yes
> > 
> > The others are either defaults (so they are still there, just not
> > showing), lines the OP added to try and fix the problem or
> > lines that shouldn't slow anything down.
> > 
> 
> I think I tried without these lines, but not sure. If possible at some
> point I'll try adding back lines one by one until it slows down...
> 
These are your non-default lines:

     winbind sealed pipes = false
     require strong key = false
     winbind sealed pipes:TEST = true
     require strong key:TEST = true

     winbind enum users  = yes
     winbind enum groups = yes
 
     restrict anonymous = 2
     server signing = mandatory
     ntlm auth = yes

Rowland

Am 28.08.2017 um 16:29 schrieb Rowland Penny via samba:
> These are your non-default lines:
> 
>       server signing = mandatory
and i bet that one has the major performance impact
__________________________

quote from microsoft:

Using SMB packet signing can degrade performance up to 15 percent on 
file service transactions.

Depending on your network and your storage system implementation, the 
performance impact might be quite different. You may have to test in you 
own environment to get an accurate statistics.

Le Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:45:16 +0200
Reindl Harald via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> écrivait:
> Am 28.08.2017 um 16:29 schrieb Rowland Penny via samba:
> > These are your non-default lines:
> > 
> >       server signing = mandatory  
> 
> and i bet that one has the major performance impact
> __________________________
> 
> quote from microsoft:
> 
> Using SMB packet signing can degrade performance up to 15 percent on 
> file service transactions.
> 
> Depending on your network and your storage system implementation, the 
> performance impact might be quite different. You may have to test in
> you own environment to get an accurate statistics.
> 
Interesting. It's quite possible for the Samba implementation to be much
slower than Microsoft's. However of course if this turns on encryption
it can understandably hamper performance dramatically on fast networks.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Florac     |   Direction technique
                    |   Intellique
                    |	<eflorac at intellique.com>
                    |   +33 1 78 94 84 02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Signature digitale OpenPGP
URL:
<http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/attachments/20170829/fcf1cb4f/attachment.sig>