[Samba] RE: Samba newbie question... (SWAT)

[John H Terpstra]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 peter.a.bryant at mainroads.qld.gov.au wrote:

> Thanks for the performance information John, I wasn't aware that
> optimising the conf could make such a difference. I guess my way of
> thinking - where I want to look at the original smb.conf file and have
> it nicely readable is a bit impractical, and maybe I will soon change
> that way of thinking, but I think it will help your work if you are
> aware of other peoples thought processes, (even if they seem
> incorrect).

Spot on! I also object to things that I have tidied my way being changed
without my consent. You are no rebel, never intended to convey that
impression either. But performance can make or break a Windows NT/2K/XP
take-out deal.

> Just to clarify for a newbie, The main functionality of SWAT is to
> optimise the smb.conf file?

No, SWAT allows you to configure and tune Samba, every option has context
sensitive help too. Then it has a tool to manage network wide passwords,
and to check on what files are open, etc. It is just that when you use
SWAT to write the smb.conf file it will write only those parameters that
are at non-default values, and it will write them in it's internal order.

> Should a separate tool be used if I want to simplify management
> (viewing, organising, understanding) of the smb.conf, or does SWAT
> perform that task as well as any of the other Samba gui's as well as
> performing optimisation?

My opinion or yours? Best thing is to try it. Form your own judgement and
give me your feedback.

> On a more basic level, could I ask you two questions about SWAT?

You did anyhow. ;)

> I could discover the answer by setting up SWAT, but I would like to know the
> answer before trying.  :-)

Lazy?

> 1. Does SWAT show what all the parameters are set to ?  ( I don't find testparm
> output the nicest to read)

Yep. It has a Basic mode and an Advanced mode. In Samba-3.0.0 it will have
a Basic mode, an Advanced mode and a Developer mode.

> 2. Does SWAT allow for "included" files in smb.conf ?
>
> finally, sorry I sure don't have the expertise to create code for swat.
>
> If I sound critical of your work or anything here, I really don't mean to, just
> looking for information.

Criticism is fair game. Go for it. That's how we improve things.

> Once again, thanks for your good work.

No problems. Enjoy.

- John T.

> >>On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 peter.a.bryant at mainroads.qld.gov.au wrote:
> >> Hi John, I don't actually use swat, so am not highly qualified to offer
> >> suggestions.  Anyway, here's my two cents.  :-)
> >>
> >> I would like to use a nice gui such as SWAT to manage my conf file,
> >> but don't because I have heard that it changes the structure -
> >> ordering of parameters etc. within the conf file, as well as removing
> >> comments. From some of your comments, I get the impression that you
> >> feel this is a minor matter, but it is the reason that I don't use
> >> swat, and I have read comments from several other people suggesting
> >> the same thing - don't use swat if you have a carefully organised conf
> >> file. In your opinion, is swat mainly a tool for optimising the conf
> >> file? What I would like it to be is a tool for organising/managing
> >> conf parameters, for easily viewing what value each parameter is set
> >> to (even if it's default value), viewing which ones are specifically
> >> set in the conf file and which are just default, and for viewing
> >> individual shares and what parameters are set for each share.
> >
> >My first exposure to real problems with excessively sized smb.conf files
> >was in a site that had 800 MS Windows clients. They had a full smb.conf
> >config history in the file. It was 156Kb in size. At that time, samba read
> >smb.conf (as it does now) every 20 seconds, except now we only read the
> >actual file if the last change is more recent than when smbd started.
> >
> >Anyway, at this site the system load with all clients idle was 30! Work it
> >out:
> >
> >800 x 156Kb x 3/60 = 6.2MB/sec of file system I/O without doing a thing.
> >By optimizing the smb.conf file this dropped the load to nothing.  The
> >resulting file was just under 10Kb in size.
> >
> >So you see, this radically taught me that config files are no place for
> >documentation. That should be done in a separate file. SWAT optimizes the
> >smb.conf file for minimum size, only writing out parameters that are not
> >at default.
> >
> >> I would like to be able to set and change parameters, and when I'm done, for
> >> SWAT to write changes back into the existing file without changing the way
> that
> >> I've got my conf nicely set out.  (including comments and several "include"
> >> files).
> >
> >So, have you checked 'testparm'? It will tell you all config parameter
> >settings.
>
> >> Is this possible?  Is it likely to happen?  Do I ask too much?  :-) I
> >> think perhaps other people would like it not to mess with their pretty
> >> organised smb.conf also.
>
> >Well, if someone will send me patches that do this as an option, I'll
> >gladly review and commit if the code is clean and not in conflict with
> >samba coding standards.
>
> >> Well, I told you I haven't used SWAT, so feel free to ignore my input.
>
> >I am looking for a convincing argument why SWAT is bad!
> >I am also looking for informed input on how we can improve the utility of
> >SWAT.
>
> >- John T.
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************
> Opinions contained in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect
> the opinions of the Queensland Department of Main Roads,
> Queensland Transport or National Transport Secretariat, or
> endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure.
> If you have received this electronic mail message in error,
> please immediately notify the sender and delete the message
> from your computer.
> ************************************************************
>

-- 
John H Terpstra
Email: jht at samba.org