Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:02:32 +0930 (CST) From: Richard Sharpe <rsharpe@ns.aus.com> To: Darren Pilgrim <dmp@pantherdragon.org> Cc: Chad David <davidc@acns.ab.ca>, <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>, <alfred@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: tuning for samba Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0207111801510.5985-100000@ns.aus.com> In-Reply-To: <3D2D30BF.41CE16E8@pantherdragon.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Regards ----- Richard Sharpe, rsharpe@ns.aus.com, rsharpe@samba.org, sharpe@ethereal.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.33.0207111801510.5985-100000>