search for: 95mb

...entical smb.conf which contains ldapsam as backend and all other parameters are not set (i.e. default) When I mount a share from a linux client, the transfer speed is ~112MB/sec to either server from any linux client. However, when I mount a share from Windows clients, the speed to server 1 is ~95MB/s and to server 2 ~85MB/s. We tested this with several windows clients (all running Windows 7 with all updates). The speed difference between linux client and windows client is not what's confusing me but that server 2 is always slower than server 1. Any ideas what could cause this? Phili...

Hello Everyone, We''re hard at work getting the hot new win32 service Luis wrote out and ready for production. We''re hoping to have that included in the 1.0 RC1 release we make very soon. This pre-release is just to make sure that we didn''t step on any toes. Install it with: $ gem install fastthread --source=http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/releases $ gem install

I also sorted the list. Between libguestfs 1.28 and 1.30, the appliance grew from 95MB to 213MB. Using guestmount and filelight (see link below) I could see that the main contributor was these two directories, which should not be necessary. With this change, the size goes down to 119MB. See also: https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/why-has-the-libguestfs-appliance-grown-by-118-m...

...1:1000)) nleqslv(x_test,cons_ext_test,jacobian=NULL) i<- sort( sapply(ls(),function(x){object.size(get(x))})) print(i[(NROW(i)-5):NROW(i)]) } model_test() When I run this over 1000 iterations, memory use ramps up to over 2.4 GB While running it with 10 iterations uses far less memory, only 95MB: Running it once has my rsession with 62Mb of use, so growth in memory allocation scales with iterations. Even after 1000 iterations, with 2+ GB of memory used by the R session, no large-sized objects are listed, although mem_use() shows 2+ GB of memory used. test_iter lambda res_ext reser...

Hello, I'm a bit desperate so I'm trying to seek help here. Many year ago, I built myself 2 file servers (5 disks enclosure for data, 2 disks enclosure for the OS) on a computer. It was running on Debian 7.11 for years without an issue and I was getting 75MB/95MB when transferring file from it to a Windows client, all having a 1gbs network card. https://i.ibb.co/N618Z4W/Debian-7.png However, after upgrading to Debian 8 and more recently Debian 11, I keep noticing a? huge performance drop. The near 100 MB drop to a roller coaster of between 25MB and 60 MB...

>> How do i compile mbuffer for our system, Thanks to Mike Futerko for help with the compile, i now have it installed OK. >> and what syntax to i use to invoke it within the zfs send recv? Still looking for answers to this one? Any example syntax, gotchas etc would be much appreciated. -- Kind regards, Jules free. open. honest. love. kindness. generosity. energy. frenetic.

I show the file size as 19M on the FTP site. 95MB is the gunzipped size. I suspect something unzipped it as it downloaded, I've seen browsers do that. I also pulled the file personally, and found the sizes lined up: ira at ira-t430:~/Downloads [/dev/pts/1](64/0)$ ls -la samba-4.1.19.tar.gz -rw-rw-r--. 1 ira ira 19558250 Jun 23 20:16 samba-4...

...sh-5.3p1$ ./scp -l 60000 test.bin hans at localhost:. progress test.bin : ? 0% ? ?0 ? ? 0.0KB/s ? --:-- ETA progress test.bin : ? 7% 7488KB ? 7.3MB/s ? 00:12 ETA progress test.bin : ?15% ? 14MB ? 7.3MB/s ? 00:11 ETA .. progress test.bin : ?98% ? 94MB ? 7.3MB/s ? 00:00 ETA progress test.bin : 100% ? 95MB ? 7.3MB/s ? 00:13 done With a simple script you can now easily control the output and save the progress somewhere: #!/bin/bash # --- only update status every 10 seconds statfn=scp1.status refresh=10 no=0 ./scp -l 60000 test.bin hans at localhost:. 2>&1|while read id fn sep perc size speed...

...Hello, > I'm a bit desperate so I'm trying to seek help here. > > Many year ago, I built myself 2 file servers (5 disks enclosure for > data, 2 disks enclosure for the OS) on a computer. > It was running on Debian 7.11 for years without an issue and I was > getting 75MB/95MB when transferring file from it to a Windows client, > all having a 1gbs network card. > https://i.ibb.co/N618Z4W/Debian-7.png > > However, after upgrading to Debian 8 and more recently Debian > 11, I keep > noticing a? huge performance drop. > The near 100 MB drop to a roll...

...ssed data, was "samba-4.1.19.tar", from Unix, last modified: Wed Jun 24 02:17:37 2015, max compression -- Regards, Jones Syue | ??? QNAP Systems, Inc. On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Ira Cooper <ira at samba.org> wrote: > I show the file size as 19M on the FTP site. > > 95MB is the gunzipped size. I suspect something unzipped it as it > downloaded, I've seen browsers do that. > > I also pulled the file personally, and found the sizes lined up: > > ira at ira-t430:~/Downloads > [/dev/pts/1](64/0)$ ls -la samba-4.1.19.tar.gz > -rw-rw-r--. 1 ira...

just to verify basic facts: Did you cross check vie network sniff, on which SMB protocol versions Server + Win 7 clients agree ? Or did you pin down via registry ? AFAIK only starting with win 8 or win 10 clients you could ask with powershell, which protocol version is in use. Did you also cross check samba logs for a name resolution issue ( windows names, not DNS) if one of your boxes is an

I have two identical servers. The only difference is that the first one has Maxtor 250G drives and the second one has Seagate 320G drives. OS: CentOS-4.4 (fully patched) CPU: dual Opteron 280 Memory: 16GB Raid card: 3ware 9550Sx-8LP Raid volume: 4-disk Raid 5 with NCQ and Write Cache enabled On the first server I have decent performance. Nothing spectacular, but good enough. The second one

I have two identical servers. The only difference is that the first one has Maxtor 250G drives and the second one has Seagate 320G drives. OS: CentOS-4.4 (fully patched) CPU: dual Opteron 280 Memory: 16GB Raid card: 3ware 9550Sx-8LP Raid volume: 4-disk Raid 5 with NCQ and Write Cache enabled On the first server I have decent performance. Nothing spectacular, but good enough. The second one

======================================================================= "People often say that motivation doesn?t last. Well, neither does bathing. That?s why we recommend it daily." Zig Ziglar ======================================================================= Release Announcements --------------------- This is the latest stable release of Samba 4.1. Changes

======================================================================= "People often say that motivation doesn?t last. Well, neither does bathing. That?s why we recommend it daily." Zig Ziglar ======================================================================= Release Announcements --------------------- This is the latest stable release of Samba 4.1. Changes

...ver is used in all tests. Software: openssh suite 3.0.2p1 psftp (putty sftp client) latest dev snapshot pscp (putty scp client) latest dev snapshot winscp 2.0 beta cygwin 1.3.6 windows xp Localhost (client/server on same box) opensftp - 5.5MB/min putty sftp - 6MB/min open scp - 56MB/min winscp2 - 95MB/min putty scp - 280MB/min windows copy - 780MB/min (11 sec) 10mbit LAN (same binaries, both xp machines) putty sftp - 1.2MB/min opensftp - 3.9MB/min winscp2 - 9MB/min open scp - 50MB/min putty scp - 65MB/min windows network copy - 68MB/min I should also add that these machines are both P3 or bett...

...9;m trying to seek help here. > >> > >> Many year ago, I built myself 2 file servers (5 disks enclosure for > >> data, 2 disks enclosure for the OS) on a computer. > >> It was running on 7Debian 7.11 for years without an issue and I was > >> getting 75MB/95MB when transferring file from it to a > Windows client, > >> all having a 1gbs network card. > >> https://i.ibb.co/N618Z4W/Debian-7.png > >> > >> However, after upgrading to Debian 8 and more recently Debian > >> 11, I keep > >> noticing a? hu...

G''day, all, So, I''ve decided to migrate my home server from Linux+swRAID+LVM to Solaris+ZFS, because it seems to hold much better promise for data integrity, which is my primary concern. However, naturally, I decided to do some benchmarks in the process, and I don''t understand why the results are what they are. I though I had a reasonable understanding of ZFS, but now

Joseph Little wrote: > I''d love to "vote" to have this addressed, but apparently votes for > bugs are no available to outsiders. > > What''s limiting Stanford EE''s move to using ZFS entirely for our > snapshoting filesystems and multi-tier storage is the inability to > access .zfs directories and snapshots in particular on NFSv3 clients.

I was trying to simply test bandwidth that Solaris/ZFS (Nevada b63) can deliver from a drive, and doing this: dd if=(raw disk) of=/dev/null gives me around 80MB/s, while dd if=(file on ZFS) of=/dev/null gives me only 35MB/s!?. I am getting basically the same result whether it is single zfs drive, mirror or a stripe (I am testing with two Seagate 7200.10 320G drives hanging off the same interface