Displaying 10 results from an estimated 10 matches for "saurabhnanda".
2019 Feb 14
3
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
>
> When you provide an exact vers= then no auto-negotiation happens (unless
> you pass "vers=3" which essentially means 3.x: use 3.0 or above). You
> either get the connection or mount fails. None the less, you can dump
> the current SMB ressources managed by the kernel by looking at
> /proc/fs/cifs/DebugData if your kernel is recent enough it should show
> the SMB
2019 Feb 11
1
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 09:29:50 +0530
Saurabh Nanda via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea about this?
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 7:22 AM Saurabh Nanda <saurabhnanda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Define "lots of files" ? What does ls | wc -l say ?
> >>
> >
> > Number of files + directories:
> >
> > # find . | wc -l
> > 2651882
> >
> > Number of files:
> >
> > # f...
2019 Feb 21
0
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
Saurabh Nanda <saurabhnanda at gmail.com> writes:
> Help in analysing the tcpdump to get to the bottom of this perf issue would
> be appreciated.
I've looked at the trace but didn't find anything out of the
ordinary. The "STATUS_NO_MORE_FILES" is erroneously taken into account
in the stats because...
2019 Feb 18
2
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
>
> I tried looking at the network capture using `tcpdump -A -X` but wasn't
> able to understand anything. I tried installing wireshark on a throwaway
> cloud instance, but realised that it's a GUI program. Can you please help
> be with the network trace at
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/r8cn0qggrvmrpc3/dump.pcap?dl=0 ? It's capturing
> the network chatter for ~1min
2019 Feb 15
3
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
Saurabh Nanda <saurabhnanda at gmail.com> writes:
> 1) Why is the log saying `SMB2` everywhere? Shouldn't it be saying
> `SMB3`?
"SMB3" is mostly marketing, it inherits almost everything from SMB2 hence
why it's often handled by SMB2 code. You will see this in Samba,
Wireshark, Linux, and even Micr...
2019 Feb 14
3
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
Saurabh Nanda <saurabhnanda at gmail.com> writes:
> I found something interesting in /proc/fs/cifs/Stats. Notice the
> "QueryDirectories > Failed" number. This keeps increasing as along as `ls
> -lR` is running.
That's interesting indeed. The verbose logs and network trace would tell
us more.
--...
2019 Feb 16
0
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
>
> > 2) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: Calculated size 157 length 156
> > mismatch mid 11907
>
> Could be a bug or miscalculated length + non critical warning, I also
> see this on master kernel. Either way I doubt it's slowing everything down.
>
Should I file a bug for this?
> ## OPERATION 1 - `ls debug.log` -- simply listing a single file. Does
>
2019 Feb 08
8
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
## QUESTION
I am sharing a 120GB folder with lots of files via Samba on a LAN (1Gbps
connection).
1) Doing an `ls -lR` on the server (on this folder) takes ~32 seconds,
compared with **72 minutes** on the client. Is this difference in
performance expected (due to network and protocol overhead)?
2) While the client is executing an `ls -lR`, one smbd process on the
server uses about 30-40% of a
2019 Feb 14
3
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
>
> Unless you upload a network capture of you mounting and doing the ls -lR
> on the client it's hard to say what really goes on. I understand you
> might not want to make it public.. but if you do
>
This is the last thing I'll try after I've exhausted all the other options.
How are you mounting your share (which mount options)?
>
Something weird is going on with
2019 Feb 15
0
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
>
> That's interesting indeed. The verbose logs and network trace would tell
> us more.
>
I've enabled verbose/debug logging on the client side. Here are a few
operations from the log, and my observations on them:
1) Why is the log saying `SMB2` everywhere? Shouldn't it be saying `SMB3`?
2) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: Calculated size 157 length 156
mismatch mid