On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 11:20:51AM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Chad David wrote:
>
> > A local company has been having issues with samba for some time (it kills
> > an e250, and has seriously stressed an e5000) and I've been telling the
> > admin (half seriously) that he s
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Doug Barton wrote:
> Chad David wrote:
> >
> > So, I'm building a new box tonight and was wondering if anybody
> > has any tried and true tuning parameters for samba on -stable.
>
> Since you never got any actual answers to your question, I offer the
> following. The only
Chad David wrote:
>
> So, I'm building a new box tonight and was wondering if anybody
> has any tried and true tuning parameters for samba on -stable.
Since you never got any actual answers to your question, I offer the
following. The only samba tuning option I've ever seen make a difference
is
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 12:33:30AM -0700, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> Richard Sharpe wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> >
> > > Richard Sharpe wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
...
> > >
> > > Even with just one connection per machine, though, you'r
Richard Sharpe wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
>
> > Richard Sharpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> > > > Samba uses a seperate process for each connection, and Windows opens
> > > > one connection per share.
> > >
> > > Yes to the first claim, no
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> Richard Sharpe wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> > > Samba uses a seperate process for each connection, and Windows opens
> > > one connection per share.
> >
> > Yes to the first claim, no to the second. Most definitely not. For
Richard Sharpe wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> > Samba uses a seperate process for each connection, and Windows opens
> > one connection per share.
>
> Yes to the first claim, no to the second. Most definitely not. For a
> single client, windows puts all share access (net us
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> Chad David wrote:
> >
> > A local company has been having issues with samba for some time (it kills
> > an e250, and has seriously stressed an e5000) and I've been telling the
> > admin (half seriously) that he should just toss it on a PC with FreeBSD
Chad David wrote:
>
> A local company has been having issues with samba for some time (it kills
> an e250, and has seriously stressed an e5000) and I've been telling the
> admin (half seriously) that he should just toss it on a PC with FreeBSD.
> Well they finally got tired of hearing FreeBSD thi
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 09:36:10PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (Jul 10), Chad David said:
> > As a side note, the data being served will be attached to the samba server
> > via NFS.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to run samba directly on the server that's
> providing the data?
They
In the last episode (Jul 10), Chad David said:
> As a side note, the data being served will be attached to the samba server
> via NFS.
Wouldn't it be better to run samba directly on the server that's
providing the data? Why force it over the network twice?
--
Dan Nelson
[EMAIL
On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 10:14, Chad David wrote:
> This is my biggest concern. I just don't know what to tune here since
> the data just basically passes straight through the box, and the with
> about of data being served and the access patterns buffering is pointless.
I disagree.. Buffering is pr
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Chad David wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 11:20:51AM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> >
> > Certainly, a 2GB machine that I regularly test against does not notice the
> > smbds start up all that much.
>
> I have no real way of testing this type of load here, but first thin
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 11:20:51AM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>
> Certainly, a 2GB machine that I regularly test against does not notice the
> smbds start up all that much.
I have no real way of testing this type of load here, but first thing tomorrow
morning I'll know..
>
> > As a side not
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 09:45:46AM +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 09:37, Chad David wrote:
> > A local company has been having issues with samba for some time (it kills
> > an e250, and has seriously stressed an e5000) and I've been telling the
> > admin (half seriously) tha
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Chad David wrote:
> A local company has been having issues with samba for some time (it kills
> an e250, and has seriously stressed an e5000) and I've been telling the
> admin (half seriously) that he should just toss it on a PC with FreeBSD.
> Well they finally got tired of
On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 09:37, Chad David wrote:
> A local company has been having issues with samba for some time (it kills
> an e250, and has seriously stressed an e5000) and I've been telling the
> admin (half seriously) that he should just toss it on a PC with FreeBSD.
> Well they finally got ti
On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 09:37, Chad David wrote:
> A local company has been having issues with samba for some time (it kills
> an e250, and has seriously stressed an e5000) and I've been telling the
> admin (half seriously) that he should just toss it on a PC with FreeBSD.
> Well they finally got ti
A local company has been having issues with samba for some time (it kills
an e250, and has seriously stressed an e5000) and I've been telling the
admin (half seriously) that he should just toss it on a PC with FreeBSD.
Well they finally got tired of hearing FreeBSD this and FreeBSD that and
asked
19 matches
Mail list logo
