AW: AW: [Samba] About SOCKET options

[Benjamin Weber]

My samba help file says:

large readwrite (G)

	This parameter determines wheather or not smbd supports [...].
	[...]
	Can improve performance by 10% with Windows 2000 clients. Defaults to on.
Not as tested as some other Samba code 	paths.

Default: large readwrite=yes

I am using Samba 2.999+30cvs, directly from the cvs tree it seems. You guys
are putting it into the debian testing/unstable tree pretty fast.

But I am not sure that this must be related to my "discovery". The socket
values of 4096 and 8192 respectivly are quite distant form the large
readwrite streaming value of 64k.

Anyy ideas?

I got emails from 2 list users who will try and run benchmarks on their M$
systems with 4096 and 8192 just to find out if they can reproduce the weird
transfer behavior I experienced. Not sure of the results, but I am quite
curious of course.

Anyone else encountered higher transfer speeds when using 4096 instead of
8192 for the SO_SNDBUF and SO_RCVBUF?
Maybe its a Samba 3.0 thing.

--
Benjamin




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: samba-admin at lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-admin at lists.samba.org]Im
Auftrag von Chris Smith
Gesendet: Freitag, 27. September 2002 19:58
An: samba at lists.samba.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [Samba] About SOCKET options


On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 13:24, Benjamin Weber wrote:
> Yep I am using "large readwrite=yes" as it is set on by default. That
might
> have anything to do with it?

Just checked my docs for 2.2.5 claim that the default is "large
readwrite = no". Maybe it's just the way your distribution set up the
smb.conf.

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