[Samba] Samba - Performance Issues

Vinay Kudithipudi VKudithipudi at spirian.com
Wed Oct 2 22:51:00 GMT 2002

Jay - I tried the test without any options (i.e. all default) and still get
the same results

Javid - I am using copy

Jeremy - All clients are Win2k or WinXP.

I would very much like to blame the hardware for the problem, but since NFS
yields better performance I am thinking SAMBA may be the cause here. 

Vinay Kudithipudi
Associate Network Operations Engineer
Spirian Technologies Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Ts [mailto:jay at jayts.cx] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:50 PM
To: Vinay Kudithipudi
Cc: samba at lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba - Performance Issues

On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 12:57:17PM -0500, Vinay Kudithipudi wrote:
> ===SMB.CONF===
> [global]
> 	workgroup = MYGROUP
> 	netbios name = {HOSTNAME}
> 	wins server = {WINSSERVER}
> 	server string = {HOSTNAME}
> 	security = SHARE
> 	encrypt passwords = Yes
> 	log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
> 	max log size = 50
> 	socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192

IIRC, someone wrote in recently saying that the sizes of SO_RCVBUF and
SO_SNDBUF can have huge effects on performance, and setting them to 8192
(which used to be a good idea) can reduce performance. I suggest removing
them from the socket options and measuring the performance at the defaults,
then try modifying them and comparing performance.

Also, TCP_NODELAY is the default, right?  So maybe just comment out the
socket options parameter, restart the daemons, and check to see if the
problem goes away.

> I was wondering if there is any documentation for fine tuning SAMBA.
> Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

Nowadays, it's usually best to "leave things alone" (i.e., at the defaults).
It's important to not change things in a way that reduces performance.

Jay Ts
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

More information about the samba mailing list