Process per share control.
Weldon S Godfrey 3
weldon at excelsus.com
Fri May 5 13:07:13 GMT 2000
I tried it and I thought it did it. I saw different processes for each
user (coming from NT terminal server). Although I think after I upgraded
the samba (from 2.0.4 to 2.0.7), it started back with everyone on the same
process. I used the option "nt smb support = no". I noticed in the man
pages for 2.0.7 it says "nt support = no"...but using that option didn't
do anything (smbstatus complains that it is an unknown option and was
being ignored). I am still using the "nt smb support = no" option.
I guess the final result is, I would like to have, each user coming from
NT Terminal Server to have its own process. I tried using and not using
the registry entry suggested in the samba docs directory with no luck.
On 3 May 2000, Sven Rudolph wrote:
> Weldon S Godfrey 3 <weldon at excelsus.com> writes:
> > A long time ago, and I could be mistaken, I thought samba could be
> > configured so that instead of a smbd process per user/machine it would
> > spawn a process per share/user/machine. If it still can, could someone
> > point me in the right direction?
> See below, including side effects ...
> From: Sven Rudolph <rudsve at drewag.de>
> Subject: observations on nt smb support = no
> To: Multiple recipients of list SAMBA <samba at samba.org>
> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:12:47 +1100
> Reply-To: rudsve at drewag.de
> X-From-Line: samba at samba.org Thu Jan 13 11:12:57 MET 2000
> Received: from moon.drewag.de (uxrs37.drewag.de [172.16.10.37]) by uxrs2.drewag.de with ESMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.7.1) id LAA20471 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:12:57 +0100 (MET)
> Received: (from root at localhost)
> by moon.drewag.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA22573
> for email@example.com; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:29:56 +0100 (CET)
> (envelope-from samba at samba.org)
> Received: from samba.anu.edu.au (samba.anu.edu.au [184.108.40.206])
> by moon.drewag.de with ESMTP id LAA22534
> for <rudsve at drewag.de>; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:29:53 +0100 (CET)
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:21447 "HELO ") by samba.anu.edu.au
> with SMTP id <S12641011AbQAMKMr>; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:12:47 +1100
> Message-Id: <xfk3ds22sdu.fsf at uxrs2.drewag.de>
> Errors-To: listproc-errors at samba.anu.edu.au
> Originator: samba at samba.org
> Sender: samba at samba.org
> Precedence: bulk
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0d -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-URL: http://lists.samba.org/
> X-Comment: Discussion of Samba software package
> Lines: 47
> Xref: uxrs2.drewag.de samba:3563
> We use Samba 2.0.6 as server, the clients are about 10 NCD WinCenter
> (NT 3.51 multiuser, WinCenter 3.0.34 based on Citrix WinFrame 1.6)
> machines with about 70 concurrent users each and several WinCenter (as
> above) and NT Terminal Server (NT 4.0 multiuser with
> MetaFrame/WinCenter (X11 addon)) machines.
> The 2.0.6 smb.conf manpage says:
> nt smb support (G)
> This boolean parameter controls whether smbd will
> negotiate NT specific SMB support with Windows NT
> clients. Although this is a developer debugging
> option and should be left alone, benchmarking has
> discovered that Windows NT clients give faster per-
> formance with this option set to "no". This is
> still being investigated. If this option is set to
> "no" then Samba offers exactly the same SMB calls
> that versions prior to Samba2.0 offered. This
> information may be of use if any users are having
> problems with NT SMB support.
> Default: nt support = yes
> Setting nt smb support =n causes visible changes.
> With =yes one smbd is startet for each client machine, whereas with
> =no one process runs for each user (and if she logs in from
> multiple client machines she gets in addition another process for each
> additional machine).
> In the multiuser NT case this means that =yes causes all file service
> connections for all users to be multiplexed via one daemon. Unless I'm
> wrong this implies one TCP connection. This might constitute a
> bottleneck and explain performance differences. OTOH I didn't do real
> performance tests yet.
> =yes caused log file = /var/log/samba/%U to fail. The user's log
> entries were shuffled around all logfiles. I didn't find a pattern.
> This might be a samba bug, but I heard of a potentially related
> observation: When printing from a WinCenter machine to another one
> acting as print server the jobs often arrive at the print server with
> the wrong user identity.
More information about the samba