similar to: Slow performance

I know this topic has been discussed many times... but what the hell makes zpool resilvering so slow? I''m running OpenSolaris 2009.06. I have had a large number of problematic disks due to a bad production batch, leading me to resilver quite a few times, progressively replacing each disk as it dies (and now preemptively removing disks.) My complaint is that resilvering ends up

While discussing unexpected timeouts on a slow (auto-restored from tape) filesystem, or on a slow network, a colleague referred me to the attached snippit of an MS manual: Has anyone tried this, and if so, was it usefull? --dave --------------- Error 3013, "The redirector has timed out to SERVERNAME" usually means that the Server that you are attempting to connect to is: Either

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 11:11:37AM +0100, Luca 'remix_tj' Lorenzetto wrote: > Il 6 feb 2018 10:52 AM, "Yaniv Kaul" <ykaul@redhat.com> ha scritto: > > > I assume its network interfaces are also a bottleneck as well. Certainly if > they are 1g. > Y. > > > That's not the case, vcenter uses 10g and also all the involved hosts. > > We

Hello. I'm experiencing slow performance when clients read from a share on Samba 3.0.24. My clients are mostly Windows XP, 2k and maybe Vista. I've eliminated all possible bottlenecks. The filesystem doesnt' slow me down, nor the lvm'ed disks, as you can see here: (I used pipemeter & cat - poorman's tools - to test. If you'd prefer anything else please advise on what

I've created an SVM in R using the kernlab package, however it's running incredibly slow (20,000 predictions takes ~45 seconds on win64 R distribution). CPU is running at 25% and RAM utilization is a mere 17% ... it's not a hardware bottleneck. Similar calculations using data mining algorithms in SQL Server analysis services run about 40x faster. Through trial and error, we

We have a single 3GHz P4 box w/2GB RAM running CentOS 3.8, acting as a gateway, which serves multiple IP address, having one virtual interface for each IP, e.g., eth0:1, eth0:2, etc. These interfaces/IPs are on the public internet. Each of these IP addresses is the NAT address for a different small LAN. All of these LANs are connected through a single Linksys 100Mb switch, to eth1 on the

I''m troubleshooting an I/O performance problem with one of our applications that does a lot of writing, generally blocks just over 32K, sequentially writing large files. It''s a Solaris 10 x86 system with UFS disk. We''re often only seeing disk write throughput of around 6-8MB/s, even when there is minimal read activity. Running iosnoop shows that most of the physical

Hi, I have some problems here with slow logins. I noticed that the login-script runs very slow, i.e. one "net use" takes up to five seconds. I updated from samba-3.0.21b to 3.0.21c this Saturday, so I don't know if this problem is actually solved. I it possible to test that with smbtorture, so I can verify that the fileserver is working correctly? I already tested the network

On 11/24/2017 06:41 AM, Sahina Bose wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Ji?? Sl??ka <jiri.slezka at slu.cz > <mailto:jiri.slezka at slu.cz>> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 11/22/2017 07:30 PM, Nir Soffer wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM Ji?? Sl??ka <jiri.slezka at slu.cz <mailto:jiri.slezka at slu.cz> > >

On Feb 6, 2018 11:06 AM, "Luca 'remix_tj' Lorenzetto" < lorenzetto.luca@gmail.com> wrote: On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: > http://libguestfs.org/virt-v2v.1.html#vmware-vcenter-resources > > You should be able to run multiple conversions in parallel > to improve throughput. > > The only long-term

Zarafa is not on the same server as Samba We only have 2 AD/DC Samba 4.5 (CentOS 7) and we put required indexes on LDAP . Arround 1000 mailboxes but not all are simultaneously in use (approx 1/3 in use). MTA is postfix (and is still connected to Samba AD, this one is not causing the issue). As a workarround, we currently deployed a synchronization connector from AD to OpenLDAP. It solves the

This is in response to a large number of you having similar problems with Samba performance as I. I have tracked these symptoms back to Digest 1709! (I didn't go back any further) I have created a few entries in the digest myself. Only one person ever responded to me (Thanks Jan K.), but that suggestion didn't help. After many late hours of tweaking last Friday night, with little

Do you see any improvement with 3.11.1 as that has a patch that improves perf for this kind of a workload Also, could you disable eager-lock and check if that helps? I see that max time is being spent in acquiring locks. -Krutika On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Abi Askushi <rightkicktech at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Krutika, > > Is it anything in the profile indicating what is

Hi Samba world, Have been struggling with this for the past 10 days, we are running Samba 3.0.22 on VCS zone, we have end users saving files onto Samba mapped drive, and complained that it 5mins to save 300 files, now it takes 30 mins. There is recently a change in the topology. Before Enduser ----------- samba mapped -------------- server (local attached storage)

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Ji?? Sl??ka <jiri.slezka at slu.cz> wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/22/2017 07:30 PM, Nir Soffer wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM Ji?? Sl??ka <jiri.slezka at slu.cz > > <mailto:jiri.slezka at slu.cz>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I am trying realize why is exporting of vm to export storage on

Thank you for your message Andrew. Then .. Waiting for this improvement... :-) Indexes seem correct to me. But I'm not sure at 100% because I cannot find clear explanation regarding the searchFlags attribute value .. 1, 2, ... ? Maybe you have one ? Thanks ! ----- Mail original ----- De: "Andrew Bartlett" <abartlet at samba.org> À: "Gaetan SLONGO" <gslongo

Hi,   I talked to Zarafa (Kopano now) support and they acknowledge that their product in combination with Samba does not scale welland is only suitable for what they call smaller setups.     Met Vriendelijke Groet, Kind Regards, Salutations,     Bart Coninckx Bits 'n Tricks BVBA   Hoge Mierdse Heide 182 2360 Oud-Turnhout tel. +32 14 480 820 gsm +32 478 88 33 08 info at bitsandtricks.com

Did not upgrade yet gluster. I am still using 3.8.12. Only the mentioned changes did provide the performance boost. >From which version to which version did you see such performance boost? I will try to upgrade and check difference also. On Sep 11, 2017 2:45 AM, "Ben Turner" <bturner at redhat.com> wrote: Great to hear! ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Abi

Following changes resolved the perf issue: Added the option /etc/glusterfs/glusterd.vol : option rpc-auth-allow-insecure on restarted glusterd Then set the volume option: gluster volume set vms server.allow-insecure on I am reaching now the max network bandwidth and performance of VMs is quite good. Did not upgrade the glusterd. As a next try I am thinking to upgrade gluster to 3.12 + test

Hi Abi Can you please share your current transfer speeds after you made the change? Thank you. On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Ben Turner <bturner at redhat.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Abi Askushi" <rightkicktech at gmail.com> > > To: "Ben Turner" <bturner at redhat.com> > > Cc: "Krutika Dhananjay"