<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <HTML ><HEAD ><TITLE >Samba performance issues</TITLE ><META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Modular DocBook HTML Stylesheet Version 1.76b+ "><LINK REL="HOME" TITLE="SAMBA Project Documentation" HREF="samba-howto-collection.html"><LINK REL="UP" TITLE="Optional configuration" HREF="optional.html"><LINK REL="PREVIOUS" TITLE="Group mapping HOWTO" HREF="groupmapping.html"><LINK REL="NEXT" TITLE="Appendixes" HREF="appendixes.html"></HEAD ><BODY CLASS="CHAPTER" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000FF" VLINK="#840084" ALINK="#0000FF" ><DIV CLASS="NAVHEADER" ><TABLE SUMMARY="Header navigation table" WIDTH="100%" BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="0" CELLSPACING="0" ><TR ><TH COLSPAN="3" ALIGN="center" >SAMBA Project Documentation</TH ></TR ><TR ><TD WIDTH="10%" ALIGN="left" VALIGN="bottom" ><A HREF="groupmapping.html" ACCESSKEY="P" >Prev</A ></TD ><TD WIDTH="80%" ALIGN="center" VALIGN="bottom" ></TD ><TD WIDTH="10%" ALIGN="right" VALIGN="bottom" ><A HREF="appendixes.html" ACCESSKEY="N" >Next</A ></TD ></TR ></TABLE ><HR ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="100%"></DIV ><DIV CLASS="CHAPTER" ><H1 ><A NAME="SPEED">Chapter 22. Samba performance issues</H1 ><DIV CLASS="SECT1" ><H1 CLASS="SECT1" ><A NAME="AEN3055">22.1. Comparisons</H1 ><P >The Samba server uses TCP to talk to the client. Thus if you are trying to see if it performs well you should really compare it to programs that use the same protocol. The most readily available programs for file transfer that use TCP are ftp or another TCP based SMB server.</P ><P >If you want to test against something like a NT or WfWg server then you will have to disable all but TCP on either the client or server. Otherwise you may well be using a totally different protocol (such as Netbeui) and comparisons may not be valid.</P ><P >Generally you should find that Samba performs similarly to ftp at raw transfer speed. It should perform quite a bit faster than NFS, although this very much depends on your system.</P ><P >Several people have done comparisons between Samba and Novell, NFS or WinNT. In some cases Samba performed the best, in others the worst. I suspect the biggest factor is not Samba vs some other system but the hardware and drivers used on the various systems. Given similar hardware Samba should certainly be competitive in speed with other systems.</P ></DIV ><DIV CLASS="SECT1" ><H1 CLASS="SECT1" ><A NAME="AEN3061">22.2. Socket options</H1 ><P >There are a number of socket options that can greatly affect the performance of a TCP based server like Samba.</P ><P >The socket options that Samba uses are settable both on the command line with the -O option, or in the smb.conf file.</P ><P >The "socket options" section of the smb.conf manual page describes how to set these and gives recommendations.</P ><P >Getting the socket options right can make a big difference to your performance, but getting them wrong can degrade it by just as much. The correct settings are very dependent on your local network.</P ><P >The socket option TCP_NODELAY is the one that seems to make the biggest single difference for most networks. Many people report that adding "socket options = TCP_NODELAY" doubles the read performance of a Samba drive. The best explanation I have seen for this is that the Microsoft TCP/IP stack is slow in sending tcp ACKs.</P ></DIV ><DIV CLASS="SECT1" ><H1 CLASS="SECT1" ><A NAME="AEN3068">22.3. Read size</H1 ><P >The option "read size" affects the overlap of disk reads/writes with network reads/writes. If the amount of data being transferred in several of the SMB commands (currently SMBwrite, SMBwriteX and SMBreadbraw) is larger than this value then the server begins writing the data before it has received the whole packet from the network, or in the case of SMBreadbraw, it begins writing to the network before all the data has been read from disk.</P ><P >This overlapping works best when the speeds of disk and network access are similar, having very little effect when the speed of one is much greater than the other.</P ><P >The default value is 16384, but very little experimentation has been done yet to determine the optimal value, and it is likely that the best value will vary greatly between systems anyway. A value over 65536 is pointless and will cause you to allocate memory unnecessarily.</P ></DIV ><DIV CLASS="SECT1" ><H1 CLASS="SECT1" ><A NAME="AEN3073">22.4. Max xmit</H1 ><P >At startup the client and server negotiate a "maximum transmit" size, which limits the size of nearly all SMB commands. You can set the maximum size that Samba will negotiate using the "max xmit = " option in smb.conf. Note that this is the maximum size of SMB request that Samba will accept, but not the maximum size that the *client* will accept. The client maximum receive size is sent to Samba by the client and Samba honours this limit.</P ><P >It defaults to 65536 bytes (the maximum), but it is possible that some clients may perform better with a smaller transmit unit. Trying values of less than 2048 is likely to cause severe problems.</P ><P >In most cases the default is the best option.</P ></DIV ><DIV CLASS="SECT1" ><H1 CLASS="SECT1" ><A NAME="AEN3078">22.5. Log level</H1 ><P >If you set the log level (also known as "debug level") higher than 2 then you may suffer a large drop in performance. This is because the server flushes the log file after each operation, which can be very expensive. </P ></DIV ><DIV CLASS="SECT1" ><H1 CLASS="SECT1" ><A NAME="AEN3081">22.6. Read raw</H1 ><P >The "read raw" operation is designed to be an optimised, low-latency file read operation. A server may choose to not support it, however. and Samba makes support for "read raw" optional, with it being enabled by default.</P ><P >In some cases clients don't handle "read raw" very well and actually get lower performance using it than they get using the conventional read operations. </P ><P >So you might like to try "read raw = no" and see what happens on your network. It might lower, raise or not affect your performance. Only testing can really tell.</P ></DIV ><DIV CLASS="SECT1" ><H1 CLASS="SECT1" ><A NAME="AEN3086">22.7. Write raw</H1 ><P >The "write raw" operation is designed to be an optimised, low-latency file write operation. A server may choose to not support it, however. and Samba makes support for "write raw" optional, with it being enabled by default.</P ><P >Some machines may find "write raw" slower than normal write, in which case you may wish to change this option.</P ></DIV ><DIV CLASS="SECT1" ><H1 CLASS="SECT1" ><A NAME="AEN3090">22.8. Slow Clients</H1 ><P >One person has reported that setting the protocol to COREPLUS rather than LANMAN2 gave a dramatic speed improvement (from 10k/s to 150k/s).</P ><P >I suspect that his PC's (386sx16 based) were asking for more data than they could chew. I suspect a similar speed could be had by setting "read raw = no" and "max xmit = 2048", instead of changing the protocol. Lowering the "read size" might also help.</P ></DIV ><DIV CLASS="SECT1" ><H1 CLASS="SECT1" ><A NAME="AEN3094">22.9. Slow Logins</H1 ><P >Slow logins are almost always due to the password checking time. Using the lowest practical "password level" will improve things a lot. You could also enable the "UFC crypt" option in the Makefile.</P ></DIV ><DIV CLASS="SECT1" ><H1 CLASS="SECT1" ><A NAME="AEN3097">22.10. Client tuning</H1 ><P >Often a speed problem can be traced to the client. The client (for example Windows for Workgroups) can often be tuned for better TCP performance.</P ><P >See your client docs for details. In particular, I have heard rumours that the WfWg options TCPWINDOWSIZE and TCPSEGMENTSIZE can have a large impact on performance.</P ><P >Also note that some people have found that setting DefaultRcvWindow in the [MSTCP] section of the SYSTEM.INI file under WfWg to 3072 gives a big improvement. I don't know why.</P ><P >My own experience wth DefaultRcvWindow is that I get much better performance with a large value (16384 or larger). Other people have reported that anything over 3072 slows things down enourmously. One person even reported a speed drop of a factor of 30 when he went from 3072 to 8192. I don't know why.</P ><P >It probably depends a lot on your hardware, and the type of unix box you have at the other end of the link.</P ><P >Paul Cochrane has done some testing on client side tuning and come to the following conclusions:</P ><P >Install the W2setup.exe file from www.microsoft.com. This is an update for the winsock stack and utilities which improve performance.</P ><P >Configure the win95 TCPIP registry settings to give better perfomance. I use a program called MTUSPEED.exe which I got off the net. There are various other utilities of this type freely available. The setting which give the best performance for me are:</P ><P ></P ><OL TYPE="1" ><LI ><P >MaxMTU Remove</P ></LI ><LI ><P >RWIN Remove</P ></LI ><LI ><P >MTUAutoDiscover Disable</P ></LI ><LI ><P >MTUBlackHoleDetect Disable</P ></LI ><LI ><P >Time To Live Enabled</P ></LI ><LI ><P >Time To Live - HOPS 32</P ></LI ><LI ><P >NDI Cache Size 0</P ></LI ></OL ><P >I tried virtually all of the items mentioned in the document and the only one which made a difference to me was the socket options. It turned out I was better off without any!!!!!</P ><P >In terms of overall speed of transfer, between various win95 clients and a DX2-66 20MB server with a crappy NE2000 compatible and old IDE drive (Kernel 2.0.30). The transfer rate was reasonable for 10 baseT.</P ><P ><PRE CLASS="PROGRAMLISTING" >The figures are: Put Get P166 client 3Com card: 420-440kB/s 500-520kB/s P100 client 3Com card: 390-410kB/s 490-510kB/s DX4-75 client NE2000: 370-380kB/s 330-350kB/s</PRE ></P ><P >I based these test on transfer two files a 4.5MB text file and a 15MB textfile. The results arn't bad considering the hardware Samba is running on. It's a crap machine!!!!</P ><P >The updates mentioned in 1 and 2 brought up the transfer rates from just over 100kB/s in some clients.</P ><P >A new client is a P333 connected via a 100MB/s card and hub. The transfer rates from this were good: 450-500kB/s on put and 600+kB/s on get.</P ><P >Looking at standard FTP throughput, Samba is a bit slower (100kB/s upwards). I suppose there is more going on in the samba protocol, but if it could get up to the rate of FTP the perfomance would be quite staggering.</P ></DIV ></DIV ><DIV CLASS="NAVFOOTER" ><HR ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="100%"><TABLE SUMMARY="Footer navigation table" WIDTH="100%" BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="0" CELLSPACING="0" ><TR ><TD WIDTH="33%" ALIGN="left" VALIGN="top" ><A HREF="groupmapping.html" ACCESSKEY="P" >Prev</A ></TD ><TD WIDTH="34%" ALIGN="center" VALIGN="top" ><A HREF="samba-howto-collection.html" ACCESSKEY="H" >Home</A ></TD ><TD WIDTH="33%" ALIGN="right" VALIGN="top" ><A HREF="appendixes.html" ACCESSKEY="N" >Next</A ></TD ></TR ><TR ><TD WIDTH="33%" ALIGN="left" VALIGN="top" >Group mapping HOWTO</TD ><TD WIDTH="34%" ALIGN="center" VALIGN="top" ><A HREF="optional.html" ACCESSKEY="U" >Up</A ></TD ><TD WIDTH="33%" ALIGN="right" VALIGN="top" >Appendixes</TD ></TR ></TABLE ></DIV ></BODY ></HTML >
