From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jul 11 7:33:15 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 D03E837B400 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from colnta.acns.ab.ca (mail.acns.ab.ca [142.179.151.95]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1400243E54 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:33:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from davidc@colnta.acns.ab.ca) Received: from colnta.acns.ab.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by colnta.acns.ab.ca (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6BEX65V047651; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:33:06 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from davidc@colnta.acns.ab.ca) Received: (from davidc@localhost) by colnta.acns.ab.ca (8.12.4/8.12.4/Submit) id g6BEX5Pk047650; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:33:05 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:33:05 -0600 From: Chad David To: Darren Pilgrim Cc: Richard Sharpe , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: tuning for samba Message-ID: <20020711083305.A47601@colnta.acns.ab.ca> Mail-Followup-To: Darren Pilgrim , Richard Sharpe , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG References: <3D2D34CA.56306E9F@pantherdragon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3D2D34CA.56306E9F@pantherdragon.org>; from dmp@pantherdragon.org on Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 12:33:30AM -0700 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 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 davidc@acns.ab.ca www.FreeBSD.org davidc@freebsd.org ACNS Inc. Calgary, Alberta Canada To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message