similar to: Performance of samba in linux vs windows

Hello all, I'm creating a site where people can share their benchmarks. If you are interested, the site is at (I just started on it so it has the stock graphics and color scheme still): www.dcsnow.com/mambo I would like some thoughts on what would be a good way to standardize the testing so the results are more comparable. Is Bonnie+ a good program for hard drive speed testing? Is there

I have a very simple setup here that I have recently made some modifications to and it has affected my ability to save files to the linux samba server. The recent changes are: converted all fs's to xfs from ext3. Upgraded to latest kernel 2.6.7 from a 2.4 kernel. Samba used to work fine. Now, I can copy files out of my linux samba server to my windows machine at full speed. However, when

>Search took -125.376129 seconds I double checked with a handheld stopwatch, and at no point did the hands spin backwards. Known problem?

Is there any documentation available about what block size MEMDISK uses to load (big iso/harddisk) image files? Experimenting with cptime.c32 on a Lexar Triton Jumpdrive (64GB, 170MB/s read in Windows, 150MB/s write in Windows) on bootable USB3.0 resulted in the following, depending on specified block size: * 2048 bytes --> 25MB/s * 2MB --> 61MB/s It would be nice to know at which speed

I've seen this problem mentioned many times in the various FAQs and How-Tos on the Internet, but none of the solutions presented therein have worked for me. [global] workgroup = UNIX server string = OPTIMUS interfaces = eth0 log level = 1 log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log max log size = 0 # socket options = TCP_NODELAY

Greetings, I'm having difficulty setting up an 'Anonymous Read-Write' SAMBA server on a new system with a stock FC2 installation for use with WinXP Pro systems. I'm using the following software on the 'fileserver': - Linux FC2 installed from the FC2 iso's: kernel 2.6.5-1.358 - samba-common-3.0.3-5 - samba-3.0.3-5 - samba-client-3.0.3-5 - samba-swat-3.0.3-5

Dear All, We are currently working with very large datasets which even in R require a lot of calculation time. Is there an option of including a function/ tool or something alike which shows the remaining time of calculation? Just to see whether there is any progress or whether anything has crashed and to get a feeling whether we have to wait for 5 min or 30min... Any help is greatly

>> The problem is performance. While Samba is not terribly slow it's still >> too slow. Copying large files takes about half a minute/meg on an > >i find that samba running on FreeBSD is also pathetically slow: 10 to 20 >k per second. adding "socket options = TCP_NODELAY" speeds this up by a >factor of ten to twenty, on a 10mb/s LAN with NE2000 cards. it

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Anyways, if you wish to avoid duplicating info on both Makefile and > CMakeLists.txt there is a simple solution: read and parse the Makefile > from the corresponding CMakeLists.txt. For instance, if you put the > library dependencies on the Makefile like this: > > LLVMLIBDEPS := foo zoo bar >

On January 24, 2020 6:13:31 PM GMT+02:00, "Georgi D. Sotirov" <gdsotirov at gmail.com> wrote: >OK, my UPS turned out to be older that I thought. I apparently bought >and installed it in September 2016 (not 2017 as I initially wrote). >That >makes for over 3 years of work, which is over the life expectancy of >the >batteries, Good batteries can last 4-5 years.

OK. I'll try it, but it really puzzles me how the battery could have gone bad for just 15 months. The online power is pretty stable, so the battery hasn't gone through many charge/discharge cycles... Regards, -- Georgi On 11.1.2020 at 14:24, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: > > indicates that the UPS thought that battery was close to depleted and decided to shutdown. I suggest to fully

Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com> writes: > While eliminating duplication is one of the goals I see in this build system > change, I think the more important ones are a) simplifying the build files > and b) making the build faster. The "build files" are the Makefiles, right? And Dan's proposal will not make the cmake build any faster. So those goals are

I''m running a site that gets ~30k to 40k page hits per day. In the last 4 days my mongrel processes have been jumping into high CPU usage a couple of times a day to the point where my site becomes unresponsive (database on a diff machine with no load). The only way for me to resolve the problem and reduce load on the machine is to delete my rails cache directory (I have plenty of space

Hi, I have run into the following I bonded 6 NICs on my Cent OS server into a 600MB pipe. I use bond method 4 = dynamic Link aggregation. My Cysco Switch supports this apparently. However I only get increased bandwidth from my MAC by connecting via AFP. However when I connect via SMB I don't. I was told to change the sockect options to the following on my smb.conf file on my fileserver:

Hi, I''ve been having a really strange thing happen. I can''t remember when it happened, or if it coincided with a shorewall update, but if I have shorewall "running", my 100mbps connection is limited to about 1-6mbps per connection. This is with TC/Shaping/QoS disabled or enabled. I have no idea if its shorewall doing something funky or ipables or what, but if I

Some what In-Reply-To: <1323092879.2629413.1445740496536.JavaMail.yahoo at mail.yahoo.com> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 02:34:56AM +0000, Patrick Masotta via Syslinux wrote: > Micheal Brown > > > > iPXE's HTTP implementation is definitely not slow. On a Gigabit LAN, > > you should get the full 1000Mbps speed for HTTP downloads: a 200MB test > > file should

I currently have a fairly simple Rails application running on FreeBSD under Apache 1.3 and normal CGI, and the performance I''m getting is alarmingly poor. I realize CGI or WebBrick are quite a bit slower than FastCGI, and I''ll probably use one of those instead when I have the time. However, I''m just curious if CGI is really supposed to be that slow, or if

hello On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Leo Currie wrote: > > Does anyone have experience doing remote live broadcasts over Icecast? My > > thought is to use a Dell laptop running Windows (yeah, I know ;-), > digitize > > locally to 16khz, and pump the output to a remote Linux box. > > > > Has anyone done something like this before? Thoughts? Issues? [...] > > Oh -

Hi all I hope no one minds but I was asked to post my timetrial findings back to the list. Hope it helps someone else as well, if you have any suggestions please mention them as I need all the speed that I can get The scenaro is as follows I have to switch mail servers and I need to copy all my mbox files over to the new machine. As you may well know time if off the utmost importance so I

The recent thread titled: working ftp shaping, i think provided a script example where 100Mbps was specified as the rate for a typical NIC. If that NIC is connected to a switch, chances are that it runs at 100Mbps in each direction concurrently - duplexed Writing a rule that specifies a 100Mbps rate and thereby a 100Mbps ceil, limits the connection to half the available bandwidth. I