Answers to your questions are inline /w the question 2008/11/18 tico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 1. Why is this sent to the "ports@" mailing list ?
I've lurked the list for a long time - since around 2.8. I've asked the odd question here and/or there, and got flamed once when I asked about a question in misc about a port and was subsequently "corrected". Since the main topic is about using samba it belongs in ports. See "ports" general interest list comment @ http://www.openbsd.org/mail.html > 2. What performance comparison is showing you that the write throughput that > you *are* achieving is bad? The beginning of email before I *tweaked* (which I didn't want to do) 170meg copy was really slow. So I tossed in the aforementioned crap based on an internet search that didn't really have a satisfactory discussion on the subject - just "things to try". > I have much nicer systems on nicer 100Mbit managed switches that individual > Windows clients are not able to drive at higher than 9MB/sec ~= 72Mbits. > If you're ranging from 4-12MBytes/sec, those are good real-world numbers. One of these days I should learn how to apply the math I learned. I still am not good at math problems like this one. Thus I still have no idea what I should be expecting - and I guess that was the real problem. Last time I had my little home network file storage served by OpenBSD (by nearly the same hardware, by the way) it just *felt* faster. My previous install still does feel faster. This post is a result of that. > 3. If you want to test out your problem, why haven't you tested out the > network throughput capability of your system/network, separately from the > disk I/O capability? /dev/null and /dev/zero exist. use them. Didn't think of it. But then didn't suspect it to begin with. See the rest in answer the answer to #4. Certainly something to try. > 4. Why are you trying to tweak the TCP stack of your system, if you don't > know what each piece does, whether or not it's a bottleneck, and what the > trade-offs are from adjusting it? There is no "kern.system.go.faster=true" > option for a reason. I know. Hence this conversation. I've got no peer in all of the technologists that I know to learn from @ the moment. > "Premature optimization is the root of all evil" -- Knuth > Are you sure that PCI cards sharing the same IRQ is a performance problem? No, but I wanted to point it out - because being more of a hardware guy I've seen the cause of problems from it before. Though much less prevalent these days. > I have systems that serve 100's of megs of data where multiple NICs are > sharing the same IRQ. Don't drink the kool-aid that you find on random > forums. Only attempt to optimize what you can establish is *actually* a > problem. > > Do you want to see one of my client's fileserver systems that serves data > faster than the Windows clients can eat it? You bet, and thanks for including it! > --------------- > from a stock smb.conf: > [global] > workgroup = BHD > server string = Samba Server > passdb backend = tdbsam > log file = /var/log/smbd.%m > max log size = 50 > os level = 33 > preferred master = Yes > domain master = Yes > dns proxy = No > wins support = Yes > hosts allow = 192.168.1., 192.168.0., 127. > ------ > # uname -m -r -v > 4.4 GENERIC#1915 amd64 > # grep -v ^# /etc/sysctl.conf net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 # 1=Permit > forwarding (routing) of IPv4 packets > # > > em0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > lladdr 00:30:48:9a:17:34 > description: internal net (VLAN100 untagged) > media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) > status: active > inet6 fe80::230:48ff:fe9a:1734%em0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 > inet 192.168.0.252 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 > > I'm running a single RAID1 volume (should be slower than your single disk) Actually I disagree. You've got hardware RAID (a host processor to handle and optimize the duplication of data without bothering the rest of the computer) /w a large cache. I've got an add-in 32bit pci card & 32M cache on the drive. > on a pair of SATA drives on an Areca controller: > > arc0 at pci2 dev 14 function 0 "Areca ARC-1210" rev 0x00: irq 5 > arc0: 4 ports, 256MB SDRAM, firmware V1.43 2007-4-17 > scsibus0 at arc0: 16 targets, initiator 16 > sd0 at scsibus0 targ 0 lun 0: <Areca, firstRAID1volume, R001> SCSI3 0/direct > fix > ed > sd0: 715255MB, 512 bytes/sec, 1464843264 sec total > > no exotic filesystem mounts either: > /dev/sd0j on /home/art type ffs (local, noatime, nodev, nosuid, softdep) > /dev/sd0e on /home type ffs (local, noatime, nodev, nosuid, softdep) > /dev/sd0k on /home/sandbox type ffs (local, noatime, nodev, nosuid, softdep) > > If it ain't broke, don't fix^H^H^H break it. > ::yawn:: > -Tico > <!- snip original message -!>
