socket options

Scott Lovenberg scott.lovenberg at
Sun Feb 17 12:59:55 MST 2013

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at> wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 13:12 -0500, Scott Lovenberg wrote:
>> On 2/1/2013 1:01 PM, Ira Cooper wrote:
>> > I never denied you can shoot yourself in the foot with them.
>> >
>> > deprecated == going to remove at some point.
>> >
>> > If you have a proposed doc update with a warning about changing them, and
>> > their potential to have a massive negative impact on performance.  That
>> > sounds quite reasonable.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > -Ira
>> >
>> >
>> I'm in favor of using wording something like what is used for "kernel
>> oplocks" or one of the oplocks settings.  It basically says in the man
>> page, "don't touch this unless you're sure you know what you're doing".
>> Of course, everyone _always_ knows that they know what they're doing, so
>> the effect may be somewhat limited.
>> There are still many guides out there that say to set socket options
>> that these days would basically cripple your TCP/IP stack on Linux (and
>> probably most other *NIXes).  People that like to "tune" will blindly
>> drop these settings into their smb.conf regardless if the man page had a
>> huge skull and cross bones with a mushroom cloud next to the option.
> Would you like to write a patch to at least improve the warnings in 'man
> smb.conf'?  Probably not ascii-art, but some clear text explaining why
> this should be the last, not first resort, particularly on Linux.

Sure.  I'll take a look at it tonight.  It actually dovetails with
some Samba stuff I was planning on working on this evening.
Peace and Blessings,

More information about the samba-technical mailing list