19 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-hackersRe: tuning for samba| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Chad David | Jul 10, 2002 5:06 pm | |
| Daniel O'Connor | Jul 10, 2002 5:14 pm | |
| Daniel O'Connor | Jul 10, 2002 5:15 pm | |
| Chad David | Jul 10, 2002 5:40 pm | |
| Chad David | Jul 10, 2002 5:44 pm | |
| Daniel O'Connor | Jul 10, 2002 6:03 pm | |
| Richard Sharpe | Jul 10, 2002 6:50 pm | |
| Richard Sharpe | Jul 10, 2002 7:09 pm | |
| Dan Nelson | Jul 10, 2002 7:35 pm | |
| Chad David | Jul 10, 2002 8:30 pm | |
| Darren Pilgrim | Jul 10, 2002 11:30 pm | |
| Darren Pilgrim | Jul 11, 2002 12:15 am | |
| Darren Pilgrim | Jul 11, 2002 12:33 am | |
| Richard Sharpe | Jul 11, 2002 12:52 am | |
| Richard Sharpe | Jul 11, 2002 1:32 am | |
| Chad David | Jul 11, 2002 7:32 am | |
| Doug Barton | Jul 14, 2002 2:45 pm | |
| Richard Sharpe | Jul 14, 2002 4:15 pm | |
| Chad David | Jul 23, 2002 11:39 am |
| Subject: | Re: tuning for samba | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Chad David (dav...@acns.ab.ca) | |
| Date: | Jul 11, 2002 7:32:43 am | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-hackers | |
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're still going to have a significant amount of swappable memory in idle smbd processes.
Yes, I agree. Something that I would like to do more about by making sure that as much as possible is shared.
At over 4MB per process (4252K each on my server), I should hope that most of it is already shared.
With my testing last night, 350 clients each writing used ~700M of cache (with was the data being writen) and only ~100M of active memory. There was only a nominal amount swapped (probably getty and friends), so the number of shared pages is actually quite high with ~2.1M of resident mem showing for each process. If it were otherwise I would have quickly burned the 1G in the test server.
The only thing I managed to exhaust was mbuf clusters, and that was on the clients first and finally on the server after a bit.
Thanks to everybody for their input and suggestions, and I'll let you know how it works in the "wild" :).
-- Chad David dav...@acns.ab.ca www.FreeBSD.org dav...@freebsd.org ACNS Inc. Calgary, Alberta Canada
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message