[Samba] Overloaded samba server. Is it a bug?

[Martin]

On Thursday 03 November 2005 10:04, Roger Eisenecher wrote:
> Hi Martin, hi list
>
> Martin schrieb:
> > Roger,
> >
> > On Thursday 03 November 2005 03:22, Roger Eisenecher wrote:
> >>Martin schrieb:
> >>>1TB with reiserfs in LVM
> >>
> >>We have a similar installation: Kernel 2.6.5-7.201-smp (the official
> >>kernel of SuSE 9.1 Professional) and we are using openldap and reiserfs
> >>too. Additonally we are using quota on the filesystem. Our server hangs
> >>often in this situation with a load of 350!!! The interesting part is
> >>that the cpu's are 92% idle. If we deactivate the quota subsystem the
> >>server will work for a longer time, but it could also happen that the
> >>load reaches 350... Only a reboot will solve this problem...
> >
> > This is exacltly our same sympthom.
> > We have already disable the quota without success. Still got the problem.
> >
> >>Martin: Which kernel are you using? Do you use quota on your filesystem?
> >
> > This is a SLES9 running
> > kernel-bigsmp-2.6.5-7.201.i586
> >
> > We had also had problems with later version
> > kernel-bigsmp-2.6.5-7.193.i586
> >
> > Note: We decided to run 32bits kernel on the EM64T Intel platform.
>
> Interesting: We use also a 32bit kernel with our dual opteron server.

We switched to 32 bits because of an issue we were having with the Samba 
version shipped with 64 Bits SLES9.
Somehow, when trying to integrate a Windows workstation to the domain, 
the attribute's sambaPwMustChange value attempted to be set to 
9223372036854775807 (If i can recall, it's the bigger number you can 
save into a 64 bits single signed integer) and samba complained because 
it wasn't a valid number to store into that kind of attribute (LDAP schema 
definition limit?).
This problem never showed up with 32 bits. Actually the value samba 
writes is 2147483647. I didn's check it out, but seems to be a common 16 
bits integer.

(by the way, there was an old idea to have an eDirectory replica on the same 
server, but thoose days it was not certified for 64bits)

> Did you experience other symptoms like that the file system does not
> respond to shell commands like ls?
I think it's all all product of the same problem: extrematly high load. 
Probably you are experimenting some delay querying LDAP server. Try "ls -n", 
in this way, you wouldn't resolve the files owner name.


--
Mrtn