[Samba] 1 byte writes

[Robert Schetterer]

Hi Thomas,
i dont see any bugs in your conf,
but in general there is no performance issue known to me
with current samba, what are the samba log say , or/and tcpdump
have you firewall on the server etc how is your setup in wins browsing
have you tested another nic
Bets Regards

Thomas Limoncelli schrieb:
> After migrating a particular W2K file service to Samba 3.0.21c on SuSE 
> 9.3 Pro (a DMS with winbindd against a W2K3 ADS), the W2K clients are 
> suffering performance issues (in a switched LAN).
> 
> Looking at the traffic with Ethereal (latest SVN), it looks like the 
> client writes the data in *1 byte* pieces likes this (c=client, s=server):
> 
> c->s NT Create AndX Request
> c<-s NT Create AndX Response
> c->s Trans2 Request, SET_FILE_INFO
> c<-s Trans2 Response
> c->s Trans2 Request, QUERY_FILE_INFO, Query File Basic Info (1004)
> c<-s Trans2 Response
> c->s Write AndX Request, 1 byte at offset 119  <-- sigh
> c<-s Write AndX Response, 1 byte
> c->s Trans2 Request, QUERY_FILE_INFO, Query File Standard Info (258)
> c<-s Trans2 Response
> c->s Write AndX Request, 1 byte at offset 155  <-- sigh again
> c<-s Write AndX Response, 1 byte
> c->s Trans2 Request, QUERY_FILE_INFO, Query File Standard Info (258)
> c<-s Trans2 Response
> c->s Write AndX Request, 1 byte at offset 191  <-- see above
> c<-s Write AndX Response, 1 byte
> ...
> c->s Write AndX Request, 1 byte at offset 6629781  <-- 100 secs later!!
> c<-s Write AndX Response, 1 byte
> c->s Trans2 Request, QUERY_FILE_INFO, Query File Standard Info (258)
> c<-s Trans2 Response
> c->s Write AndX Request, 4096 bytes at offset 0  <-- the file header?
> c<-s Write AndX Response, 4096 bytes
> c->s Write AndX Request, 2454 bytes at offset 6627328  <-- strange
> c<-s Write AndX Response, 2454 bytes
> c->s Flush Request
> c<-s Flush Response
> c->s Close Request
> c<-s Close Response
> 
> resulting in incredibly poor write performance. Does this ring a bell 
> with anyone?
> 
> Searching the list archives, this issue seems to be only known with 
> particular poorly-written applications:
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/mailing.unix.samba/browse_thread/thread/89c619c8ea1e48/256e1ebf227819cc 
> 
> 
> but we're running none of those mentioned there (but may have found yet 
> another ;-)).
> 
> Then, still, there haven't been any noticeable performance issues with 
> the same application against the original W2K file server, so /me ends 
> up as the one being pointed at. :-(
> 
> smb.conf global settings are the same as in an earlier thread 
> (http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2006-February/118057.html) plus 
> the following share-level settings:
> 
> [grp$]
>         path = /cifs/grp
>         valid users = +XXX\mygroup
>         read only = No
>         create mask = 0770
>         directory mask = 0770
>         nt acl support = Yes
>         acl group control = Yes
>         map acl inherit = Yes
> 
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> 
> -TL