[clue] samba performance tuning?
Mike Bean
beandaemon at gmail.com
Wed Sep 18 10:56:02 MDT 2013
This is getting interesting: the common thread is this in the samba log:
[2013/09/18 16:54:11.396694, 2] auth/auth.c:319(check_ntlm_password)
check_ntlm_password: Authentication for user [admin] -> [admin] FAILED
with error NT_STATUS_NO_SUCH_USER
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Quentin Hartman <qhartman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Graphite++. I use it for a number of application-level metrics at work and
> it's suuuuuuper nice.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Chris Fedde <chris at fedde.us> wrote:
>
>> Add interface bytes in/out and error counts to your monitoring so you can
>> look back and see if there are any interesting issues there. Also if you
>> have smart switches add monitoring there too. It's hard to know what
>> changed when you don't have some kind of baseline.
>>
>> I use nagios and nagios graph for monitoring right now but I'm starting
>> to get more interested in using Graphite for the time series data.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Mike Bean <beandaemon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't believe it, I've been messing with it for a while, but I don't
>>> understand the appeal. GPFS just feels like another open source project IBM
>>> bought up so they could take credit for the work. (Used to be mmfs).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Quentin Hartman <qhartman at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd throw some instrumentation on the server hosting the samba share
>>>> and see if you're simply saturating the links (users <-> samba <-> gpfs )
>>>> if nothing else has changed and the storage performance is generally within
>>>> "ok" tolerances. I've not worked with gpfs before, sounds like a cool tech.
>>>>
>>>> I like Ganglia for general system instrumentation like this. It can
>>>> take some voodoo to make it work, but the graphs and trends it creates are
>>>> usually worth it. If you need something quicker / lighter, collectd works
>>>> well, but I haven't used it in a long time. As i recall it needs a plugin
>>>> to do net stats.
>>>>
>>>> QH
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Mike Bean <beandaemon at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Samba version 3.6.5
>>>>>
>>>>> "What is slow?"
>>>>> A good, worthy question to ask. I don't have an answer yet because
>>>>> I'm still trying to get in touch with the users. When I pull up that
>>>>> share, it's not appreciably degraded to me. I consider it fine for use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Others
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the part that gets a little complicated. The host system
>>>>> itself is running on a gpfs cluster, but there's been exactly zero
>>>>> complaints about gpfs access. The cluster, for all intents and purposes,
>>>>> seems fine, the only issue they're having is the rate of access on this one
>>>>> share for the last few weeks or so, and there's not been any appreciable
>>>>> change that we were aware of that took place approximately two weeks ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> (I did notice smbstatus didn't work until I softlinked our .conf file
>>>>> to user/local/samba/lib... flimsy, I admit it,.... a coincidence?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Quentin Hartman <qhartman at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing from your config snippet jumps out at me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some more info about the environment would be useful:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - What version of Samba?
>>>>>> - What's the hardware like?
>>>>>> - Is it a local FS, or is it an NFS export or something like that?
>>>>>> - What is "slow"?
>>>>>> - Are only transfers slow, or is it directory browsing? Both?
>>>>>> - Is the network getting saturated?
>>>>>> - Is there anything else going on that might be competing for IO?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The few times I've had complaints about Samba performance, it's been
>>>>>> either an IO problem (backup running while people were hitting the server),
>>>>>> DNS problems (server trying to do lookups and waiting for timeouts), poorly
>>>>>> configured NFS export from another machine (wsize, rsize anyone?), or the
>>>>>> network has simply been saturated (adding a second bonded interface solved
>>>>>> that one). You may be noticing a theme in that the "samba problems" I've
>>>>>> faced haven't been samba problems at all....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> QH
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Mike Bean <beandaemon at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the risk of being really blunt, CLUE has always given me good
>>>>>>> advice in the past, so I thought I'd ask for some pointers. We have a
>>>>>>> situation at work where some of our code monkeys are complaining about the
>>>>>>> performance on a samba share mounted on a RHEL6.1 server; I'm trying to
>>>>>>> get a path out of them (the monkeys) so I can reproduce the issue, but in
>>>>>>> the meantime we're not seeing an appreciable performance problem or
>>>>>>> evidence of any large errors. We're thinking it's going to come down to
>>>>>>> Samba performance tuning, and wouldn't you know, I know exactly spit and
>>>>>>> nothing about Samba performance tuning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prayed at the google altar, as usual, and unless my questing has
>>>>>>> served me poorly, the biggest gains are to be had in TCP_NODELAY, which was
>>>>>>> already in our conf.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's our smb.conf:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # Global parameters
>>>>>>> [global]
>>>>>>> socket options = IPTOS_LOWDELAY TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=65536
>>>>>>> SO_SNDBUF=65535
>>>>>>> encrypt passwords = Yes
>>>>>>> log level = 2
>>>>>>> log file = /var/log/samba.log.%m
>>>>>>> guest account = admin
>>>>>>> security = share
>>>>>>> kernel oplocks = no
>>>>>>> dead time = 15 # Default is 0
>>>>>>> getwd cache = yes
>>>>>>> lpq cache = 30
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [dqm_share]
>>>>>>> comment = Some Share
>>>>>>> path = /xxxx/yyyyyyyyyyyy
>>>>>>> public = yes
>>>>>>> writable = yes
>>>>>>> printable = no
>>>>>>> create mask = 0664
>>>>>>> directory mask = 0775
>>>>>>> # strict locking = no #commented out to test its
>>>>>>> effects
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I see it, there's not much tuning I can do without benchmarking
>>>>>>> the share and that's a whole new can of worms; so I thought I'd solicit
>>>>>>> suggestions/advice from CLUE members willing to give it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike Bean
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> clue mailing list: clue at cluedenver.org
>>>>>>> For information, account preferences, or to unsubscribe see:
>>>>>>> http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> clue mailing list: clue at cluedenver.org
>>>>>> For information, account preferences, or to unsubscribe see:
>>>>>> http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> clue mailing list: clue at cluedenver.org
>>>>> For information, account preferences, or to unsubscribe see:
>>>>> http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> clue mailing list: clue at cluedenver.org
>>>> For information, account preferences, or to unsubscribe see:
>>>> http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> clue mailing list: clue at cluedenver.org
>>> For information, account preferences, or to unsubscribe see:
>>> http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> clue mailing list: clue at cluedenver.org
>> For information, account preferences, or to unsubscribe see:
>> http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue mailing list: clue at cluedenver.org
> For information, account preferences, or to unsubscribe see:
> http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cluedenver.org/pipermail/clue/attachments/20130918/44de9d24/attachment-0001.html
More information about the clue
mailing list