Memory/CPU usage

[Frank J. Pellegrino]

No changes have been made to the smb.conf file after the upgrade.
Below is the parameters I used compiling with gcc 2.95.2 on Solaris
2.6.

./configure --prefix=/opt/samba2.2.1a 
--with-privatedir=/opt/samba2.2.1a/private \
--with-lockdir=/opt/samba2.2.1a/var/locks --with-swatdir=/opt/samba2.2.1/swat \
--with-automount --with-quotas

This system has 162 shares and 144 printers.  It is the PDC for our
network.

If you need any further information let me know.

Thanks,

Frank

At 11:50 AM 10/5/2001 -0500, Javid Abdul-AJAVID1 wrote:
>did you change smb.conf after upgrade
>
>what were the parameters used when compiling samba2.2.1a
>list them out if you remember them
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Frank J. Pellegrino [mailto:pellegri at mailhost.sju.edu]
>Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 10:05 AM
>To: samba at lists.samba.org
>Subject: Memory/CPU usage
>
>
>Yesterday I upgraded a solaris 2.6 box running samba 2.0.6 to
>samba 2.2.1a.  The new version seems to want almost 4 times
>as much memory as 2.0.6.  It is running on a Sun E3500 with
>4 processors and 2GB of RAM.  During an average day there
>could be 300-400 smbd processes running.  Below is a little cut
>of a few running under samba 2.0.6.
>
>PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE  SIZE   RES STATE   TIME    CPU COMMAND
>   6946 root       1  58    0 4400K 2872K sleep   0:00  0.16% smbd
>21814 root       1  38    0 4400K 2896K sleep   0:00  0.13% smbd
>   5388 root       1  58    0 4400K 2872K sleep   0:00  0.10% smbd
>   5698 root       1  58    0 2584K 2232K sleep   3:55  0.10% nmbd
>   7079 root       1  54    0 4392K 2768K sleep   0:00  0.09% smbd
>15263 root       1  54    0 4400K 2976K sleep   0:03  0.07% smbd
>   6857 root       1  58    0 4400K 2864K sleep   0:00  0.07% smbd
>   6864 root       1  58    0 4400K 2864K sleep   0:00  0.07% smbd
>
>When I upgraded each process wanted 15MB of RAM and several of
>them started gobbling up CPU usage.  This eventually brought the
>system to a state where other applications could not function properly.
>Restarting samba was a temporary fix but the problem quickly repeated
>itself under a load.  We have been stable with samba 2.0.6 for well over
>a year and 2.2.1a appears to be working on our other 7 servers that have
>a lower load.  We had to fall back to v2.0.6 yesterday afternoon.  Does
>anyone have any ideas on what I could try to resolve this problem?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Frank
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
>instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
>
>--
>To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
>instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba