Fwd: [Samba] Memory usage

[Jason Baker]

>
> I have seen complaints of poor performance with 3ware controllers
I am running a couple 3Ware RAID controllers and I had very poor 
performance with SAMBA until I enabled Write Caching on the RAID cards. 
You will need to make sure you have some kind of battery backup in place 
(either on the controllers themselves, or on the server the controller 
is installed on). Write Caching speeds up performance considerably. I 
would check and see if this is enabled on your cards.

*Jason Baker
*/IT Coordinator/


*Glastender Inc.*
5400 North Michigan Road
Saginaw, Michigan 48604 USA
800.748.0423
Phone: 989.752.4275 ext. 228
Fax: 989.752.4444
www.glastender.com <http://www.glastender.com>

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- 
Version: 3.1
GIT$ d- s: a C++$ LU+++$ P+ L++>L++++ !E--- W+++ N o? K?
w !O M !V PS PE++ Y? PGP- t 5? X+ R+ tv+ b- DI-- D++ G e+ h--- 
r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------



John Drescher wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: John Drescher <drescherjm at gmail.com>
> Date: Aug 21, 2007 10:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [Samba] Memory usage
> To: rajeev at cracknell.com
>
>
>   
>> What else does it make the machine slow.
>>     
> Possibly permissions. Maybe the filesystem choice. It could also be
> filename case handling as linux is case sensitive and windows is not.
> Are you using ldap or ADS?
>
>   
>> Is it the raid. I have 8 WD SATA
>>     
> Doubtful.
>
>   
>> HDD with raid ready (3mbps) hard disks on a 8 port 3ware controller.
>>     
> I have seen complaints of poor performance with 3ware controllers
> although I don't have any on my linux systems so I do not know. Do you
> have write back cache on?
>
>   
>> Does
>> anyone have a comparison on SATA raid and SAS raid disk. As you know SAS
>> disk are very expensive I would like to know from experts in the list who
>> can tell me which of the following is best.
>>
>> 1) 2 servers each having 2.0TB raid disk with SAS drives, 2GB ram and
>> standard other features.
>> 2) 4 No servers with 1TB each with 2GB ram and standard other features.
>>
>>     
> I can't compare that as I have never had a SAS. My servers are home
> built machines with 1.2 to 3TB of software raid (mostly 6)  with 2GB
> to 4GB of ram all running 64 bit gentoo and have 1 or 2 Opteron
> processors.
>
>   
>> If the projects are distributed in the 2 option do you think it would be
>> better than 1 sty?.  as you know the price of SATA disk is much cheaper than
>> the SAS disk and we could nearly by 4 servers for that money.
>>
>>     
> I have 10TB of linux software raid5 and raid6 using dozens of SATA
> disks on a nearly 100% gigabit network with about 100 machines and
> most of this data is accessed via samba. I have seen a few speed
> problems but for the most part all works smoothly. One case of a speed
> problem is a DICOM scrubbing application that reads up to 100,000
> 512KB files off one server, removes patient info from the headers and
> stores this data on a second server. In normal conditions this
> operation is about 5 to 10 of these files per second but at times this
> slows to 1 per second. When this happens I see on the samba server
> that the samba process is taking > 25% of the CPU time (which it never
> does when it is working) so after stopping this scrubbing process and
> kill the offending smbd process all is well again.
>
> John
>
>
>