LinuxQuestions.org - Ubuntu samba slower than red hat??

- Linux - Networking (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-networking-3/)

- - Ubuntu samba slower than red hat?? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-networking-3/ubuntu-samba-slower-than-red-hat-467644/)

Ubuntu samba slower than red hat??

About 10 days ago I switched from a Red Hat 9.0 machine as my Samba server to Ubuntu. Ever since, things have been slow.

How do I mean, slow?

1st clue: previously, when I saved docs in OOo Writer, I would go ctrl-S and once every 4th or 5th time it would say it couldn't create a backup; now it is every time. So to save I have to go ctrl-S esc esc ctrl-S.

2nd clue: WinXP on login to the server times out before connecting the three drives it tries to connect--never before.

3rd clue: WinXp used to load directories instantly; now it takes 4-5 seconds.

There is some other weirdness too: when logged in to the server it reports the file owner and group as dean:1005. dean is the name of another user on this client machine, but rarely used. It should see it as doug:data, which is how the server sees it.

Also it used to see the files as

Code:

-rwxrwSrwt 1 root root 4.0K 2003-01-25 03:18 wgetrc

Now it sees them as

Code:

-rwxrwxrwx 1 dean data 99 1993-09-28 22:07 TEST.SDW

The new server: Ubuntu 6.06, Celeron D 2.53Ghz, one 200GB HDD, 6 months old.
The old server: RedHat 9.0, Celeron 2Ghz, one 80GB HDD with OS on it, one 120GB HDD with only data on it, at least 3 years old. Samba is at least that old.

So the question is, how can I speed up the Ubuntu samba? How would you troubleshoot this?

Some ideas I have not yet tried:

1. Remove all the commented lines from the smb.conf file.

2. Perhaps older versions of samba are just faster than the newer ones, and I should learn to live with it.

3. Perhaps there are some tweaks in samba that I need to learn about.

4. Copy over the old smb.conf file to the new system.

Where should I start? What is most likely to have a good payoff for time invested?

Thanks!

I think that idea #4 is your best bet. Chances are that something is set wrong for your network in /etc/samba/smb.conf. The best way to see what might be wrong is to first BACK UP YOUR CURRENT SMB.CONF, and then compare the RH9 one to the Ubuntu one, adding and removing things until you get it right. Alternatively, you can (first backing up your current smb.conf) just copy the old file onto the new computer and edit it to make sure that the files and directories mentioned are all correct.

Give one or both of these a try and let me know how it goes.

--Dane

Thanks, Dane!

I plan to try that, perhaps this evening, perhaps this weekend. I will report back.

Also, I discovered the logs for samba last night and have a lot of them that read this way:

Code:

[2006/07/25 17:36:14, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1225)

  getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected

[2006/07/25 17:36:14, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1225)

  getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected

[2006/07/25 19:12:17, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1225)

  getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected

[2006/07/25 19:12:17, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1225)

  getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected

Is this a clue?

Thanks, Dane!

Hello again.

I that's a pretty cryptic error. I did some googling for it and found this:

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t...ighlight-.html

Might want to give their solution a try.

--Dane

Dane--

Many thanks!

I had not yet gotten to googling the error message. I tried the smb ports = 139 line in the smb.conf file, but am still getting the errors. Then again, I am testing from a linux client, which is where the problems are most prevalent.

I'll watch it more over the next few hours and see.

Good detective work, Dane! Thanks!

No problem. :-)

Try moving your log file to a different location so that Samba will start a new one. That'll give you a better idea as to whether the problem still exists. Also, I saw on a site that you might want to try port 445 instead.

Good luck.

--Dane

Dane--

Have been away a couple days, playing with my grandkiddies.

I just changed it to port 445, and am still getting the errors. But I want to watch it over the next day or so in a production time, to see.

Thanks!