Quantcast

Slow Samba writes over NFS

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Slow Samba writes over NFS

ashis.v.purbhoo

Hello...

Currently in the process of upgrading Samba v2.0.10 to Samba v3.0.x, while
conducting some minimal testing, it turns-out that Samba v3.0.x is
performing slower than Samba v2.0.10.

Set-ups:
A. Samba v3.0.x -->
Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 (64bit,
HP DL380) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached
Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380).

B. Samba v2.0.x -->
Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 (32bit,
Dell T7400) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached
Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380).

C. Samba v2.0.x -->
Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Solaris8 (Sun V240)
which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached Solaris8
(Sun V240).

Trails:
I've tested both Samba versions using the same smb.conf files and have also
tested with all global defaults (except those required).  Played around
with Socket Options & Max Xmit sizes but no luck, it's still slower.  This
doesn't sound accurate, shouldn't the Samba v3.0.x be faster than Samba
v2.0.10?  What config options/settings should I be looking at?

Regards,
Ashis

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Slow Samba writes over NFS

Helmut Hullen
Hallo, ashis.v.purbhoo,

Du (ashis.v.purbhoo) meintest am 17.07.08:


> Currently in the process of upgrading Samba v2.0.10 to Samba v3.0.x,
> while conducting some minimal testing, it turns-out that Samba v3.0.x
> is performing slower than Samba v2.0.10.

> Set-ups:
> A. Samba v3.0.x -->
> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5
> (64bit, HP DL380) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another
> SAN attached Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380).

> B. Samba v2.0.x -->
> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5
> (32bit, Dell T7400) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from
> another SAN attached Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380).

Maybe a change to cifs instead of nfs helps - I have seen that in a  
school in the neighnourhood.

Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Slow Samba writes over NFS

Volker Lendecke
In reply to this post by ashis.v.purbhoo
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 09:47:19AM -0500, [hidden email] wrote:

>
> Hello...
>
> Currently in the process of upgrading Samba v2.0.10 to Samba v3.0.x, while
> conducting some minimal testing, it turns-out that Samba v3.0.x is
> performing slower than Samba v2.0.10.
>
> Set-ups:
> A. Samba v3.0.x -->
> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 (64bit,
> HP DL380) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached
> Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380).
>
> B. Samba v2.0.x -->
> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 (32bit,
> Dell T7400) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached
> Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380).
>
> C. Samba v2.0.x -->
> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Solaris8 (Sun V240)
> which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached Solaris8
> (Sun V240).
>
> Trails:
> I've tested both Samba versions using the same smb.conf files and have also
> tested with all global defaults (except those required).  Played around
> with Socket Options & Max Xmit sizes but no luck, it's still slower.  This
> doesn't sound accurate, shouldn't the Samba v3.0.x be faster than Samba
> v2.0.10?  What config options/settings should I be looking at?
None. Very likely it is the utimes(2) calls that we have to
do on each write for correctness. Can you verify that with
sniffs? I will have to dig it up, but there is a module
somewhere that gets rid of those, sacrificing a bit of
compatibility.

BTW, exporting an NFS imported directory is a REALLY, REALLY
bad idea. Why don't you just install Samba on the NFS
server?

Volker

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

attachment0 (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Slow Samba writes over NFS

eric roseme
In reply to this post by Helmut Hullen


Helmut Hullen wrote:

> Hallo, ashis.v.purbhoo,
>
> Du (ashis.v.purbhoo) meintest am 17.07.08:
>
>
>> Currently in the process of upgrading Samba v2.0.10 to Samba v3.0.x,
>> while conducting some minimal testing, it turns-out that Samba v3.0.x
>> is performing slower than Samba v2.0.10.
>
>> Set-ups:
>> A. Samba v3.0.x -->
>> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5
>> (64bit, HP DL380) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another
>> SAN attached Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380).
>
>> B. Samba v2.0.x -->
>> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5
>> (32bit, Dell T7400) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from
>> another SAN attached Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380).
>
> Maybe a change to cifs instead of nfs helps - I have seen that in a  
> school in the neighnourhood.
>
> Viele Gruesse!
> Helmut
Samba 2.* default was "strict locking = no", and 3.* is "strict locking
= yes".  If you have "strict locking" set over an NFS mount, it will be
very slow.

Eric Roseme
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Slow Samba writes over NFS

ashis.v.purbhoo
All -

Thanks for the suggestions, putting Samba directly on the file server would
be ideal, but due to the environment & the large number of Linux/Unix file
servers, this is not a likely scenario.  Unfortunately, the only current
option is for us is to use Samba accessing data over NFS.  From my
understanding several factors went into deciding on Samba v2.0.10 and among
that were NFS data integrity, smbd hanging and & non-use of *tdb's.  At
some point in time we had to go from Samba v2.2 back to Samba v2.0.10 for
the above reasons.

Suggestions received to speed NFS writes on Samba v3 vs. Samba v2:
   Set "strict locking = no" (default in Samba v2*).  Default in Samba v3
   is "strict locking = yes"
   Set "posix locking = no"
   The utimes(2) calls may have changed for write for correctness...

With or without the suggested updates above, is Samba susceptible to NFS
data corruption and smbd hangs?  Was the utime code/script update to really
address NFS write correctness, or other?

I need to determine if any/all of these items below have substance/still
hold true for Samba v3* and specifically for Samba 3.0.27a.
      Does these websites info. still hold true for Samba 3.0.27a?
      http://threebit.net/mail-archive/samba/msg00821.html
      Issues around Samba 3.0.5:

   http://www.usenet-forums.com/samba/308202-re-samba-exclusive-oplock-left-process.html

Regards,
Ashis



This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may
have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender
indicating that and delete the copy you received. In addition, you should
not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information
contained in this communication. Thank You.


                                                                           
             Eric Roseme                                                  
             <eroseme@emons                                                
             ter.rose.hp.co                                             To
             m>                       Helmut Hullen <[hidden email]>  
             Sent by:                                                   cc
             samba-bounces+           [hidden email]                
             ashis.v.purbho                                        Subject
             o=exxonmobil.c           Re: [Samba] Slow Samba writes over  
             [hidden email]           NFS                                  
             .org                                                          
                                                                           
                                                                           
             07/18/08 10:13                                                
             AM                                                            
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond                                                
                   to                                                      
             eroseme@emonst                                                
             er.rose.hp.com                                                
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           






Helmut Hullen wrote:

> Hallo, ashis.v.purbhoo,
>
> Du (ashis.v.purbhoo) meintest am 17.07.08:
>
>
>> Currently in the process of upgrading Samba v2.0.10 to Samba v3.0.x,
>> while conducting some minimal testing, it turns-out that Samba v3.0.x
>> is performing slower than Samba v2.0.10.
>
>> Set-ups:
>> A. Samba v3.0.x -->
>> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5
>> (64bit, HP DL380) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another
>> SAN attached Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380).
>
>> B. Samba v2.0.x -->
>> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5
>> (32bit, Dell T7400) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from
>> another SAN attached Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380).
>
> Maybe a change to cifs instead of nfs helps - I have seen that in a
> school in the neighnourhood.
>
> Viele Gruesse!
> Helmut
Samba 2.* default was "strict locking = no", and 3.* is "strict locking
= yes".  If you have "strict locking" set over an NFS mount, it will be
very slow.

Eric Roseme
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba


--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Slow Samba writes over NFS

Volker Lendecke
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 11:14:59AM -0500, [hidden email] wrote:

> Thanks for the suggestions, putting Samba directly on the file server would
> be ideal, but due to the environment & the large number of Linux/Unix file
> servers, this is not a likely scenario.  Unfortunately, the only current
> option is for us is to use Samba accessing data over NFS.  From my
> understanding several factors went into deciding on Samba v2.0.10 and among
> that were NFS data integrity, smbd hanging and & non-use of *tdb's.  At
> some point in time we had to go from Samba v2.2 back to Samba v2.0.10 for
> the above reasons.
>
> Suggestions received to speed NFS writes on Samba v3 vs. Samba v2:
>    Set "strict locking = no" (default in Samba v2*).  Default in Samba v3
>    is "strict locking = yes"
>    Set "posix locking = no"
>    The utimes(2) calls may have changed for write for correctness...
"strict locking" or even "locking" should not be touched.
"posix locking = no" is advisable for sharing NFS imports.

> With or without the suggested updates above, is Samba susceptible to NFS
> data corruption and smbd hangs?  Was the utime code/script update to really
> address NFS write correctness, or other?

The utimes stuff is not an NFS specific thing, the problem
though is that it is orders of magnitude slower over NFS
than on a local file system.

smbd hangs when re-exporting NFS are most likely NFS client
bugs that Samba can not work around. If smbd is stuck in D
state in a file system syscall like pread(2) or unlink(2),
there is NOTHING that Samba can do. This is a kernel issue.


> I need to determine if any/all of these items below have substance/still
> hold true for Samba v3* and specifically for Samba 3.0.27a.
>       Does these websites info. still hold true for Samba 3.0.27a?
>       http://threebit.net/mail-archive/samba/msg00821.html
>       Issues around Samba 3.0.5:
>
>    http://www.usenet-forums.com/samba/308202-re-samba-exclusive-oplock-left-process.html

Beyond "posix locking = no" please also set "kernel oplocks
= no". Then depending on the quality of your NFS client
implementation you could get to a working server.

Volker

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

attachment0 (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Slow Samba writes over NFS

Jorge Concha
In reply to this post by ashis.v.purbhoo
Hi...

Same problem here,
running on CentOS 5.* and 4.5.

It was solved by installing the package lockdev.
Then you must restart the machine.

And problem fixed.



ashis.v.purbhoo wrote
Hello...

Currently in the process of upgrading Samba v2.0.10 to Samba v3.0.x, while
conducting some minimal testing, it turns-out that Samba v3.0.x is
performing slower than Samba v2.0.10.

Set-ups:
A. Samba v3.0.x -->
Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 (64bit,
HP DL380) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached
Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380).

B. Samba v2.0.x -->
Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 (32bit,
Dell T7400) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached
Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380).

C. Samba v2.0.x -->
Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Solaris8 (Sun V240)
which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached Solaris8
(Sun V240).

Trails:
I've tested both Samba versions using the same smb.conf files and have also
tested with all global defaults (except those required).  Played around
with Socket Options & Max Xmit sizes but no luck, it's still slower.  This
doesn't sound accurate, shouldn't the Samba v3.0.x be faster than Samba
v2.0.10?  What config options/settings should I be looking at?

Regards,
Ashis

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Loading...