win98 vs win95 with TCP/IP
davecb at Canada.Sun.COM
Tue Oct 13 16:52:15 GMT 1998
"Marcus Graf" <mg at graf.weinheim.de> wrote:
> 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)
It would have been easier if you'd mentioned a bit more about
the nature of the problem earlier (:-))
You've hit the oplocks issue: you want ``oplocks=no'' on
the share with the database, if that's all that's in
the share, or ``veto oplock files = this.dbx/that.dbx/theother''
if the ``database'' is individual files in a share.
Oplocks give superior speed on non-shared files, by
caching them locally. One should never share the
files of a database across a network: one should have the
clients call the database server instead. If you have
a pc database that tries to share across a networked
filesystem, you need to turn local caching off, for
both performance and consistency.
I generally regard single-user file-based PC ``databases'' as
being the same sort of thing as free samples of crack
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify some people
185 Ellerslie Ave., | and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain
Willowdale, Ontario | davecb at hobbes.ss.org, canada.sun.com
N2M 1Y3. 416-223-8968 | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb
More information about the samba