March 16, 200620 yr I was looking at the samba settings that come with UnRaid. They do not match what is "recommeded" for max performance. Some of the differences are: SO_RCVBUF and SO_SNDBUF are recommended to be 8kB looks like we have 4kB. read raw and write raw are also recommended and I don't see those at all. What about setting MTU size or is that set elsewhere? My network can handle jumbo packets. I'm hesitant to change the settings as I don't know if UnRaid requires these settings in order to work. Has anyone changed any of these? thanks,
March 16, 200620 yr Actually, SO_RCVBUF and SO_SNDBUF are both set to 65535. Last time we worked on Samba performance, found these were the optimal settings. Also, 'read raw' and 'write raw' are set to 'Yes' by default. MTU settings can be changed by the 'ifconfig' command. Again, last time we were trying to improve ethernet performance, didn't find much improvement going to larger frames, even with jumbo-frame-supported switches. Turns out there's a lot of tweaking to do, both on linux side and windows side to wring out better performance. Maybe one of our community members can experiment a bit with this?
March 16, 200620 yr Actually, SO_RCVBUF and SO_SNDBUF are both set to 65535. Last time we worked on Samba performance, found these were the optimal settings. Also, 'read raw' and 'write raw' are set to 'Yes' by default. MTU settings can be changed by the 'ifconfig' command. Again, last time we were trying to improve ethernet performance, didn't find much improvement going to larger frames, even with jumbo-frame-supported switches. Turns out there's a lot of tweaking to do, both on linux side and windows side to wring out better performance. Maybe one of our community members can experiment a bit with this? Tom, I looked in /etc/samba/smb.conf on my server and it looks like SO_RCVBUF and SO_SNDBUF are not both set to 65535. The line in my config file set them like this SO_RCVBUF=66535 SO_SNDBUF=65535 Could this be a typo and you intended to enter 65535 instead of 66535 for SO_RVCBUF? Might it work better with the 65535 you might have intended as the receive buffer size? Joe L. Contents of /etc/samba/smb.conf follow: root@Tower:/etc/samba# cat smb.conf [global] # configurable identification include = /etc/samba/smb.names log level = 1 log file = /var/log/samba.%m max log size = 2000 socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_KEEPALIVE SO_RCVBUF=66535 SO_SNDBUF=65535 disable spoolss = Yes show add printer wizard = No security = SHARE guest account = root guest ok = Yes guest only = Yes read only = No map archive = Yes map system = Yes map hidden = Yes [flash] path = /boot # auto-configured shares include = /etc/samba/smb.shares
March 17, 200620 yr Yep that's a typo, but in practice, it's essentially equivalent. For a good read on this subject, refer to the following: http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/tcptune http://www.redhawk.org/print.php?sid=39 An "unknown" for me at the moment is to what extent Samba fiddles with socket options - probably will have to study the Samba code to understand this before making tcp tuning decisions.
March 17, 200620 yr Author From what I've read it is recommended to compare Samba performance against FTP. Can we enable the ftp daemon temporarily to get some comparison numbers? They should be close in performance and is a good way to identify Samba issues.
March 17, 200620 yr Author I figured this one out on my own There is no ftpd shipped on the flash drive, only trivial ftp. hmm
March 21, 200620 yr Author Does anyone know of a program you can run on XP to check the samba disk IO performance? I just a program called HDTach to check harddrives on my computer, but can't find something similar for samba drives. thanks,
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.