From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jul 11 0:33:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8640837B400; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spork.pantherdragon.org (spork.pantherdragon.org [206.29.168.146]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2748143E09; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:33:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dmp@pantherdragon.org) Received: from spark.techno.pagans (spark.techno.pagans [4.61.202.145]) by spork.pantherdragon.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F8E4471DA; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:33:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pantherdragon.org (speck.techno.pagans [172.21.42.2]) by spark.techno.pagans (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2FE8FDA0; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D2D34CA.56306E9F@pantherdragon.org> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:33:30 -0700 From: Darren Pilgrim X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Sharpe Cc: Chad David , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, alfred@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: tuning for samba References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Richard Sharpe wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote: > > > Richard Sharpe wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Darren Pilgrim wrote: > > > > Samba uses a seperate process for each connection, and Windows opens > > > > one connection per share. > > > > > > Yes to the first claim, no to the second. Most definitely not. For a > > > single client, windows puts all share access (net use, mounting, whatever > > > you want to call it) over the single TCP connection to the server. > > > > You're right, sorry. I had gotten mixed up on the multiple connection > > issue because of my own configuration that results in one share per > > connection. > > > > > Nope, ~700 connections! > > > > 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. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message