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

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>

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 01:47:27PM +0200, Emmanuel Florac via samba
wrote:
> 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.
The Microsoft implementation certainly will use the Intel AES-specific
instruction set, which Samba doesn't out of the box. There is a NetGear
patch that fixes this for Samba by copying the libraries from the Linux
kernel implementation, but this hasn't been merged yet.

Le Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:59:58 -0700
Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> écrivait:
> > 
> > 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.  
> 
> The Microsoft implementation certainly will use the Intel AES-specific
> instruction set, which Samba doesn't out of the box. There is a
> NetGear patch that fixes this for Samba by copying the libraries from
> the Linux kernel implementation, but this hasn't been merged yet.
Therefore that would explain well why each process couldn't process
more than 100 MB/s...

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/20170830/94d85f2f/attachment.sig>