headers
Christopher R. Hertel | 1 Apr 2003 01:00

Re: Samba performance

On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:41:25PM +0000, jra <at> dp.samba.org wrote:
> Please resend with a mailer that doesn't wrap at 80 columns :-).
> 
> Jeremy.

Looks more like 55 c

--

-- 
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   crh <at> ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   crh <at> ubiqx.org
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Christopher R. Hertel | 1 Apr 2003 01:01

Re: Samba performance

On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:41:25PM +0000, jra <at> dp.samba.org wrote:
> Please resend with a mailer that doesn't wrap at 80 columns :-).
> 
> Jeremy.

Looks more like 60 columns.

--

-- 
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   crh <at> ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   crh <at> ubiqx.org
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ravi Wijayaratne | 1 Apr 2003 01:18
Picon
Favicon

Re: Samba performance

Jeremy,

I apologise for the format hassle. Hope this works.

Cheers
Ravi
> Please resend with a mailer that doesn't wrap at 80 columns :-).
> 
> Jeremy.

Samba Performance testing 
==========================

1.0 Architecture:
----------------- 
Server:
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) III CPU family  1266MHz
Memory: 1GB
Kernel: Linux 2.4.18
File System: xfs-1.1
Samba version: 3.0-alpha19
Network: 1 GB point to point

Client: 
1/2 GB memory and 1.6 GHZ Pentium  

1.1 Introduction:
-----------------

We have been trying to measure samba performance. The
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Chere Zhou | 1 Apr 2003 02:04

only the first "wins server" works?

If I have 2 "wins server" set in smb.conf like the following:
wins server = 172.16.0.61, 172.16.10.8

I can verify that only the first works, the second does not, because the 2 
wins servers have different contents in them, one for some domains and the 
other for some other domains.  I have trusted domains in both of the wins 
servers.  The domains are w2k domains, so the trust works through DNS, but I 
joined samba 3.0 as an NT4 server.

So my question is, is this by design of how WINS suppose to work, or 
otherwise a problem in samba?  I am using cvs HEAD code of Mar. 19th.

Chere
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Aladdin_Cai | 1 Apr 2003 03:40
Picon

答复: When the keep-alive packet sent out,rfc1002 says different things!!

Thank you all.
For the case 1.there will be many echo overhead.And I have no way to know the server timeout when I am in
client, so I can't determinate when to send echo packet.

For case 2, I have though over it. suppose there is such a situation:
     when I WriteRaw data to server and server will send me a "writeRaw OK" response.And almost the same
time,keep-alive is sent.Now I take the stuff out from socket buffer, which is a mixture of "writeRaw OK"
and keep-alive packet. And it is worse when it happens during the ReadRaw, as you know, the data in the
ReadRaw has no protocol header, when a keep-alive packet is inserted into the stream, or  if the raw data
might be also something like {0x85 0 0 0},simply discarding will do the wrong thing. (although the
possibility is very low.)


-----原始邮件-----
发件人: Christopher R. Hertel [mailto:crh <at> ubiqx.mn.org]
发送时间: 2003年4月1日 2:07
收件人: Andrew Bartlett
抄送: Aladdin Cai(絆價_豎奻漆ㄘ; samba-technical <at> lists.samba.org
主题: Re: When the keep-alive packet sent out,rfc1002 says different things!!


On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 08:07:16PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 19:42, Aladdin_Cai <at> asus.com.cn wrote:
> > Hello everyone, When I am programming a samba client in freeDOS,using
> > wattcp, I found a strange thing, which is not the same as rfc1002 claims.
> > In rfc 1002,see below:
> 
> > So,during I write data or read data to server, it seems that server will 
> > not send me any keep-alive packet because he will reset the timer.But
> > in fact,during I raw write a very large piece data to server(not
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Christopher R. Hertel | 1 Apr 2003 04:43

Re: only the first "wins server" works?

On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 04:04:30PM -0800, Chere Zhou wrote:
> If I have 2 "wins server" set in smb.conf like the following:
> wins server = 172.16.0.61, 172.16.10.8
> 
> I can verify that only the first works, the second does not, because the 2 
> wins servers have different contents in them, one for some domains and the 
> other for some other domains.  I have trusted domains in both of the wins 
> servers.  The domains are w2k domains, so the trust works through DNS, but I 
> joined samba 3.0 as an NT4 server.
> 
> So my question is, is this by design of how WINS suppose to work, or 
> otherwise a problem in samba?  I am using cvs HEAD code of Mar. 19th.

WINS is badly designed.  The original NBNS design was better.  Samba has 
to be compatible with WINS, though, so we're stuck with Microsoft's 
design.

That said...  The 'wins server' parameter handles *two* different new
features.  The first is WINS failover, and the second is multi-namespace.

WINS failover (which is what your line above is using) allows Samba to try 
a second WINS server if the first WINS server fails.  So, the way you have 
things written, if 172.16.0.61 gets crushed by a falling asteroid, Samba 
will use 172.16.0.8.  That only works if the two WINS servers are 
synchronized.  Otherwise, they will have separate (and incompatible) 
namespaces.

The other new feature is multi-namespace.  If you use a colon (":") to 
separate the IP addresses, the second WINS server will be used if the 
first could not resolve the NetBIOS name to an address.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Christopher R. Hertel | 1 Apr 2003 04:59

Re: ??????: When the keep-alive packet sent out,rfc1002 says different things!!

On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 09:40:06AM +0800, Aladdin_Cai <at> asus.com.cn wrote:
> Thank you all.
> For the case 1.there will be many echo overhead. And I have no way to 
> know the server timeout when I am in client, so I can't determinate when 
> to send echo packet.

Well, it shouldn't really be needed anyway since the first packet of a 
READ RAW or WRITE RAW should reset the server timer anyway.  I thought of 
it as a way to force a timer reset, but it should not be necessary.

As for overhead, though, I was suggesting sending it just before the READ 
RAW or WRITE RAW request.  That would be minimal overhead.

> For case 2, I have though over it. suppose there is such a situation:
> when I WriteRaw data to server and server will send me a "writeRaw OK"
> response.And almost the same time,keep-alive is sent.Now I take the
> stuff out from socket buffer, which is a mixture of "writeRaw OK" and
> keep-alive packet.

...but they will be in sequence, not mixed.  The WriteRaw OK message will 
be a complete SMB message, so you will not have any trouble parsing them.
Just read the number of bytes specified in the NBT header's length field.

The READ RAW, as you point out below, is the real problem...

> And it is worse when it happens during the ReadRaw,
> as you know, the data in the ReadRaw has no protocol header, when a
> keep-alive packet is inserted into the stream, or if the raw data might
> be also something like {0x85 0 0 0},simply discarding will do the wrong
> thing. (although the possibility is very low.)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bogdan Iamandei | 1 Apr 2003 07:14
Picon
Picon

Samba 3.0 HEAD - Print share problem.


	Hi all,

	I'm trying to get the latest CVS version running on solaris 8, and it 
seems that it has some problems with the print shares.

Namely - when I try to connect via smbclient to a shared printer, it
passes the auth phase only to come up with an error message like:

tree connect failed: NT_STATUS_BAD_DEVICE_TYPE

Worse, it appears that W2K/WXP clients are getting either blue-screens
because of it, or they simply reboot as soon as the user tries to
add a printer shared on this server.

I was running 3.0 alpha 18 - without a problem, so there's something
fishy with this HEAD version.

	Any ideea of what might cause this thing? If you need more
info, I can send the debug logs/configs/whatever, just ask.

					Cheers,
						Ino!~

--

-- 
I have seen things you people wouldn't believe.  Attack ships on fire
off the shoulder of Orion.  I watched C-beams glitter in the dark
near the Tannhauser Gate.  All those moments will be lost in time,
like tears in rain.  Time to die.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ulf Bertilsson | 1 Apr 2003 08:22
Picon

RE: (fwd) amigasamba?

> COOOOL!
> 
> On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 23:08, Ulf Bertilsson wrote:
> > I look into this in a few days.
> > 
> > Use www.birrabrothers.com/tiger/data/samba as mirror
> > 
> > I'm on vacation and don't have the info here.

Yes, now everything is fine.

--
Uber
Amiga rulez ;D
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Christopher R. Hertel | 1 Apr 2003 09:28

Re: ???`: ??????: When the keep-alive packet sent out,rfc1002 says different things!!

On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 01:33:14PM +0800, Aladdin_Cai <at> asus.com.cn wrote:
:
> ...but they will be in sequence, not mixed.  The WriteRaw OK message will 
> be a complete SMB message, so you will not have any trouble parsing them.
> Just read the number of bytes specified in the NBT header's length field.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~ Here  I'd ask a quite stupid question:) :If  server sends
>             client two packets, one by one.
> 	      Until both are in socket buffer,client calls recv( ) to get
>             the all in buffer, will client get a mixture 
> 	      or only the first packet?

That's a very good question, actually...
TCP provides a stream.  The packets will be made available in the order in 
which they were sent, but *not* as discreet packets.  You might call 
recv() and get the end of the last packet, all of the current packet, and 
the first part of the next packet.  You have to collect and parse the 
input.

The nature of the SMB protocol hides that fact.  In general, the client 
will only get a message from the server if the client asked for it.  You 
send a request, wait for the entire reply, then send another request.

The keep-alive is one situation in which the messages can get interleaved.  
It can also happen if there are multiple processes using the same SMB 
connection.

>             If it is the first situation,Then,I have to suppose that it 
>             is possible
> 	      that keep-alive is in front of WriteRaw OK,then I have to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane