similar to: SO_{RCV,SND}BUF=8192 ?

Dear LIST: I'm working on SAMBA performance enhancement. Can anyone guide me for a reference about the 4 WATer mark socket options and their effects on TCP/IP performance? Have anyone any experiments about using them in the SAMBA code? -- THX in advance, M. Tajamolian Jun 8

Hi. Between 2 linux (2.6.11 client and 2.6.14 server) machines connected by a 100Mb link I get samba performance copying a file from the client to the server through a smbmounted share of around 4.2MB/s Is this to be expected? Or can it be improved (and if so, how?) I've tried tweaking SO_(SND/RCV)BUF (after reading numerous articles on samba performance...), but it doesn't seem to have

Synopsis: samba 2.0.6 running under FreeBSD 3.3-RELEASE is much faster than the same running under FreeBSD 3.4-RELEASE, even after replacing the 3.4-RELEASE kernel with the 3.4-STABLE kernel. (This has been reported to FreeBSD GNATS as "kern/16605") I have 2.0.6 running under FreeBSD using the following smb.conf: [global] workgroup = <NT Domain> server string =

Hi, I'm heavly relying on rsync -nvrc during my day-to-day work in UNIX-like enviroment. I'm using rsync for few years now and today I've found a situation which I do not understand. I have two directories with few maildirs in it. Each maildir containg some emails. I'm testing scripts which I wrote to manipulate those emails. Each time I want to revert changes in one set of

We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do some batching during rx before submitting them to host network stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet temporarily in a linked list and submit them all once MSG_MORE were cleared. Tests

We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do some batching during rx before submitting them to host network stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet temporarily in a linked list and submit them all once MSG_MORE were cleared. Tests

We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do some batching during rx before submitting them to host network stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet temporarily in a linked list and submit them all once MSG_MORE were cleared. Tests

We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do some batching during rx before submitting them to host network stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet temporarily in a linked list and submit them all once MSG_MORE were cleared. Tests

dear friend. i have mips board with BCM sibyte 1125CPU(use board sibyte 1250 swarm.) i use linux-kernel 2.6.12-rc1 download from linux-mips.com i use kernel 2.4.26 before this time, it's work ok at 2.4.26 with Ramdisk-busybox when i try to use ramdisk in 2.6.1x version, i found that ramdisk i not exist, i don't known how to use it again(i had try a patch for get ramdisk init to

Yamaban wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 16:00, m.roth at ... wrote: > >> We've started having a problem with a CentOS 7 server. It looses its >> IPv6 address, if I understand this issue correctly. We can get in, >> if we do ssh -4, though. >> >> In the logs, I'm seeing this about twice an hour: >> <warn> (pid 98466) unhandled DHCP event for

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 10:13:17AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often > lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do > some batching during rx before submitting them to host network > stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from > sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 10:13:17AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often > lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do > some batching during rx before submitting them to host network > stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from > sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet

i am assigned a network to replace its "Windows server with ISA caching proxy" with another "debian linux with squid proxy" with both "linux" and "ISA" are completely differnet boxes. i am using linux 2.6 kernel since the linux server has SATA hard disks . the network has downlink with a penta@net DVB card for down-link ; then it''s connected

Hi all, we have a very large customer (90'000 PCs) worldwide that has problems with a Samba server. Here are the details : platform : IBM 4-cpu server runing AIX 4.3 Samba : 2.2.7a compiled with gcc 2.95.3 clients : about 100-200, worldwide network : ATM, at least for the server (I don't have more details, sorry) samba config : pretty straightforward, security=server (might be

Dear Steve and *.* e1r2 developers and users, now MFCR2 is successfully installed! many thanks for your help. I'm living in Argelia. I have configure my MFCR2 according argentina R2 settigs. (look at the end of the message) the testcall run perfectly (only warnings and I think that is just debug). but I have many problems and when I run Asterisk-MFCR2, generally in the begging no errors

Short version: Different clients need different socket options to perform well. Can I point to a different smb.conf file as a function of the client name or OS? Long version follows for the masochists! At home I run a mixed-client network, and I am having problems configuring my smb.conf to support them all equally well. I am able to create shares, and I can browse them, but file transfers

W dniu 19.09.2019 o?20:49, Rowland penny via samba pisze: > On 19/09/2019 19:33, Bart?omiej Solarz-Nies?uchowski via samba wrote: >> Dear List, >> >> After migration I have found some problems: >> >> 1. >> >> directives in /etc/samba/smb.conf >> >> force user >> >> force group > You shouldn't be using those anymore, you

Dear Steve and *.* e1r2 developers and users, now MFCR2 is successfully installed! many thanks for your help. I'm living in Argelia (north africa). I have configure my MFCR2 according argentina R2 settigs : the test call run perfectly (only warnings and I think that is just debug). but I have many problems and when I run Asterisk-MFCR2. generally in the begging no errors occur. after

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:09:31PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > +static int tun_rx_batched(struct tun_file *tfile, struct sk_buff *skb, > + int more) > +{ > + struct sk_buff_head *queue = &tfile->sk.sk_write_queue; > + struct sk_buff_head process_queue; > + int qlen; > + bool rcv = false; > + > + spin_lock(&queue->lock); Should this be spin_lock_bh()?

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:09:31PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > +static int tun_rx_batched(struct tun_file *tfile, struct sk_buff *skb, > + int more) > +{ > + struct sk_buff_head *queue = &tfile->sk.sk_write_queue; > + struct sk_buff_head process_queue; > + int qlen; > + bool rcv = false; > + > + spin_lock(&queue->lock); Should this be spin_lock_bh()?