[Samba] SysVol questions

[JD Daniels]

I do not think this is necessarily a samba issue. I have 3 customers who 
went with Server 2011 and server 2012.

Each customer that saves excel and/or word documents to the server with 
a mapped drive suffered TERRIBLE performance with window 7. Windows XP 
clients were fine.

In the end, we disabled SMB2 on all the servers, and every client is a 
happy camper. Since none of three are customers I have samba in place 
for, I think it safe to throw the crappy performance finger at SMB2.

--
JD Daniels


On 5/23/2014 1:53 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> 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 ?
>
> Jeremy.