[Samba] SysVol questions

Jeremy Allison jra at samba.org
Fri May 23 14:53:52 MDT 2014

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:53:17PM -0500, Taylor, Jonn wrote:
> On 05/22/2014 12:13 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> >On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:11:25AM -0500, Taylor, Jonn wrote:
> >>That may be the case but samba 4.x has a long way to before it will
> >>replace a samba 3.6.x file server. The AD part of samba 4 is cool
> >>and I have been playing with it for many years but it has a serious
> >>AD replication problem and the smb server performance is VERY bad.
> >It's the same smbd file server code as 3.6.x (just with more
> >features, fixes and performance changes :-). So I don't know
> >where you're getting the Samba 4.x is "different" idea from :-).
> Jeremy,
> Don't miss understand what I trying to say. What the samba team has
> done with 4.x has been great.
> In the testing that I have done on our production file server
> cluster if I run transfer tests with 3.6 vs 4.1. The 4.1 is 50%
> slower than 3.6!!! I am not the only one seeing this. We just built
> 2 new file servers running CentOS 6.5 running pacemaker, drbd, samba
> and ctdb to provide all file and profile sharing. This was built
> with 4.1.7. We finally had to go back to 3.6 because of the
> performance problems. We also had problems with winbind and I know
> that is being worked on.

4.1.x uses SMB2 by default. I'd be interested
in numbers if you forced the 4.1.x server to
only serve out SMB1, that would be an apples-to
apples comparison.

As you're using ctdb, is this a cluster config
with a shared filesystem backend ? Do you have
numbers on a single fileserver config ?


More information about the samba mailing list