win98 vs win95 with TCP/IP
mg at graf.weinheim.de
Mon Oct 12 20:00:10 GMT 1998
> We crave stability. But Linux+Samba is just much slower as a file
> It's normally quite fast: are you running over a
> dial-up network, requiring you to adust MTU's for
> If not, try ``socket options = TCP_NODELAY'', which
> adapts server TCPs to a MS feature (:-)) and produces considerable
> speed increases...
There is another point I've reported to samba-bugs a few days ago:
We've experienced a great *loss* in performance when migrating an
Access application (MDB file > 16 MB) from a slow NT-Server
(486DX-66, NT 3.51 server) to a muxh faster Samba server (P166, 64
MB, Linux 2.0.35, Samba 1.9.18p10.) The workstations are connected
via a 100 MBit fast ethernet.
With one workstation using the database it ran normal. With two
warkstations it slowed down. With four workstations the application
was unusable (> 2 minutes for one query)
Playing with smb.conf we've tracked ist down to be a locking problem.
Fith 'fake oplocks = yes' it ran at normal speed. (Of cause we've got
database consistency problems.)
A friend of me looked over the Samba code and told me to reduce the
LOCK_RETRY_TIMEOUT in local.h from 100 ms to 5 or 10 ms. After that
the application ran at full speed again. The server load is still
normal. Maybe 100 ms for the retry timeout are to much wasted time
for a fast network...
I'm not sure if this was the right way to solve the problem. But it
[We've also set -O6 -m486 -fomit-frame-pointer in the Makefile. Maybe
it makes Samba a little bis faster :-)]
* We build our computers the way we build our cities -- over
* time, without a plan, on top of ruins.
* (Ellen Ullman, "The dumbing-down of programming")
More information about the samba