Is there a way to install/compile samba v2.2.x on hpux 10.20?

[Bert Kamps]

Hello,

We have a problem with samba v2.0.7, it doesn't give us the performance we want with an application called Pro/Engineer.

So i tried to install the newest version of samba (2.2.2) but it gave the following error:
Doesn't support file locking.

(I tried an old version of samba, 2.0.6 but it gave the same error). Now we have a binary package installed of samba for hpux, is there also a new version of samba in a package (i couldn't find it).

Is there a way to compile a new version of samba on hpux 10.20? Or is there a package for hpux 10.20?

Thanks for your help,

Bert

[harry d brown jr]

Here is a precompiled, but not 2.2.2:

http://www.mpoli.fi/~jussi/files/samba.htm



TO get a source and get it to compile, you would need Gnu's make and gcc, and possibly "as".


live free or die
harry

[Bert Kamps]

Thnx for the link, i will try tomorrow, when i'm back at work, samba v2.0.6.
We have some problems with samba and directories with many (10.000+) files!

I also heard from someone that samba aboven 2.x uses PAM authentication, and that hpux 10.20 doesn't have that...

[harry d brown jr]

Yeah, you are quite limited with 10.20. If you had 11.x, I'd suggest this:

http://www.docs.hp.com/hpux/netcom/index.html#CIFS/9000


live free or die
harry

[Bert Kamps]

Yep,

I'm aware there's CIFS, but because we are using hpux 10.20 apps, we can't upgrade in short term.

It's a bummer that there's no new binary version of samba available. Because i don' think downloading gcc and make will help, it stops with the error that file locking is not supported.

But i will try ofcourse!

[Bert Kamps]

I installed binutils/gcc and make, but it still gives the following error:

Error: on locking available. Running samba would be unsafe.
configure error:summary failure. Aborting config.

Anybody got an idea?

[Mike Hassell · Accepted solution]

Bert,

I am famillar with what your are trying to accomplish as I've done something very similar in a UG/iMAN environment. Those search paths and thousands of files in each directory can be performance issues to say the least.

Can you tell us how you are authenicating the clients? does the HP-UX server belong to the NT domain and do most of your clients authenicate with that domain?

Where do you most of your performance problems exist? Authenication or when refreshing the shares themselves? transferring data?

You may wish to look into your socket options if you truly thing the performance issue lies in the transferring of data for example in your smb.conf file:

[global]
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192

Be sure to let us know how your name resolution is occuring as well as this may pose some performance problems, do you have the HP-UX server setup to use the same WINS servers as the NT clients?

How many clients do you have connected via samba at one time? (smbstatus will tell you).

Do you map the shares as drive on the NT clients or do you use the UNC (\\servername\sharename) path in your search path config for Pro/E?

I'm not sure your going to see a major performance enhancement by upgrading from 2.0.7 -> 2.2.x.

-Mike

[Bert Kamps]

Hello mike,

We are using security=share, and and the share parameters we put guest ok = yes.
So everyone in a certain ip-range can access the samba server.
Should we use domain authenticatoin? Did you see any performance increase?

Our performance problem is NOT network transfer speeds, i have tested nfs/samba and found that samba is getting about 4,3 mB/s. That's fast for our server, ftp isget lower transer rates. If you check the attachment, i've done some tests to see what is our problem.

Our problem is that it takes a long time before pro Engineer has found the files.
We are using searchpaths in pro engineer, so if i want to download a assembly, proe searches in those searchpaths. When we decrease the searchpaths to ONE, we're getting the same speeds on nt as on unix.

We are not using a wins-server for our samba-server, i've already tried this but it didn't led to an increase of speed...
So samba is now in its own workgroup.

We are having about 1 or 2 users at the same time on samba.

We map our samba shares with windows 2000 as a drive. And we're not unc structures in our searchpaths, just j:\pdmdata\btdc\parts etc.

I have upgraded to samba 2.2.2, it finally succeeded :). There was some increase in network transfer, but only 10% or so.
I think it lies within proe itself, or with the way nt/pro searches for the files.
Because transfer rate of nfs and samba is almost the same.

Please check out the attachment, i've done some tests.

Did you solve this problem? I've also tried windows 2000 nfs clients, but those were even slower.

You can also mail me enbkamps@nmhg.com

[Bert Kamps]

Our name resolving: hosts-tabel, broadcast.

[Bert Kamps]

I just did some more tests. When i copied a big directory, i noticed that copying big files is going fast (approx 3 mB/s), but small files was VERY slow, about 1 mB/s! I know that copying small files is slow, but not that slow.

Sometimes the transfer rate droptes to 0,5 kB/s....

[Stefan Schulz]

Hi Bert,

reading this thread it seams to me, that this is no problem of samba but of Windows.

Windows has its problem locating a file in a large directory. And 10000+ files in a directory is something i would consider "large".

I don't think you can gain much more performance by tuning samba or NFS if the problem is really the Windows OS.

Regards Stefan

[Bert Kamps]

I know, that's what i'm telling to my superiors all the time. Maybe proe is using a not so effecient system call to find those files?
I know that manu people have problems with proe and samba... Some guys rearrange their directory structure, so assemblyparts are in one directory. Our colleagues in another part of the world did also change their directory structure...

[Mike Hassell]

Bert,

Well I don't have a clear cut solution to fix your exact problem, but maybe some of the following will help.

security=share and guest=ok, isn't the best route to take as far as real world security is concerned, because anyone on your network can now connect to these shares and start deleting files or editing them, this may or may not be a concern.

We used security=domain where you must first create a "machine" account in the domain using server manager, then have the HP-UX box join the domain using 'smbpasswd -j DOMAIN -r PDC' This does a few things for you, but requires you as an administrator to maintain more user accounts or at least sync them for the users. Once you are part of the domain (the same one that all your NT clients attach to each day) you must create a UNIX user account of the same username and have the users sync their passwords. This way when users authenicate with the domain and their drive mappings occur they are also authenicated with the samba share on the HP-UX box. So when they save files and or edit files they use their UNIX account of the same name and password and thus the file is "owned" by them in the UNIX world, makes tracking who is doing what on your samba shares about as easy as it gets, but I doubt you will gain any performance from this issue, just a nice feature and it takes care of the security aspect, because if they don't have a UNIX account, they can't authenticate. If you want to pursue this route, be sure your workgroup=DOMAINname in smb.conf.

Now you say you've tried WINS before and had no benefit. I'm curious here as name resolution can really "bog" you down when dealing with UNIX and NT talking with each other over NetBIOS. I would recommend that you use WINS because it dynamically updates and should have all the NT clients contained within it and also the HP-UX box as it's 'nmbd' process will sync with the primary WINS server on your network. Please take a look at the following and ensure that name resolution is not causing a performance problem:

http://us2.samba.org/samba/docs/Samba-HOWTO-Collection.html#AEN309

Do you also administrate the NT server that you are connecting to? or can you work closely with the NT admins to do some testing? Be sure to take a detailed look at the underlying physical network that is between your HP-UX box and the NT server. Are you on a switched network? What are the duplex settings on both servers, the same or not? 100FD or HD? Can you work with your network admins to do some sniffing to take a detailed look at your SMB traffic?

I would be curious to see how much "broadcasting" you would be doing via the NetBIOS world when attaching and viewing the thousands of files on these shares. The integration is not flawless, but we were pleased with the outcome of ours as we had roughly 30 users connected to the samba shares at once and the search paths performed just as well as the UNIX clients that were NFS mounted. I would say don't even bother with trying to NFS share from the NT server as I have yet to find a decent NFS server and MS hasn't put one out since the begining of NT4 (SFU 2.0). Another quick question for you, what service pack are your NT clients at? do you stay current? Hope that helps a bit, thanks.

-Mike

[Bert Kamps]

I've just entered the wins server in smb.conf, i will check tomorrow if the speed will go up.
I doubt it, but hey if i don't try we certainely won't know :)
WINS is only beign used as a nameserver for samba/microsoft networking, so i won't speed up transfer rates or whatever.

If I authenticate to a share, we have choosen for security=share and guest only=yes. I could try to change the security to our domain (i'm also a member of domain admins). But I doubt that this will improve our speeds, because it is only a matter of authentication when i access the share. Not when browsing, copying etc (correct me if i'm wrong, that's what i understood of the samba documentation).

We did some extra testing with NT <> NT.
We copied ONE parts directory to another nt cadstation and shared the dir. We changed our searchpathes, and loaded the assembly into memory. This was JUST as fast as unix <> unix.
BUT, our unix server has a maximum network transfer rate of 5/6 mB/s (we have a sh*tty old btlan card), whereas the cadstations can get speeds of 12 mB/s!
Second, the harddiscs of the cadstions are much faster, so is the cpu, it has more memory etc.
AND we compared it to unix download the same assembly, but with all the other assembly directory in its searchpath.

So nt was MUCH slower! It only looked faster, but the comparison was just false. NT Cadstations are just faster then our unix server.

Our physical network is 100 completely switched, and 1 gigabit backbone. We are in a different subnet than the other normal workstations, and we're being connected to the 'other' network with a router.
We don't get any broadcastmessages from the other network. And when the cadstation is idle, we get about 1 kB/s on the lan-card.

As our btlan card won't run on 100 mbit full duplex, we now have the card on 100 mbit half duplex. Our unix stations are running 100 mbit full duplex, just as our nt cadstation.

I have level 10 log files of samba, and i have captured frames on nt, but i didn't see anything strange...

I installed glance today, and nfs/smb has the same transfer speeds. But samba is using 50-60% cpu time, whereas nfs is just using 5-10 %... But nfs is using almost as many disc IO/s as smb.

Why would netbios send broadcast messages when viewing directories or copy files?
I also did a samba <> samba test, so i copied a 100 mB file, and it took the same time as on nt.

Btw we are using IBM Intellistation M-pro with win2k sp2 on it.

How did you solve your problem? Because i think it's in proe, or in a system call from nt that proe uses.

[Bert Kamps]

I don't think samba is our problem, because we are running the newest version of it. So all the bugs (uhuh all, i mean many) are solved in this version.
We have a good configuration file, we have fast transfer speeds.

[Bert Kamps]

How did you solve your problem? Did you also had slow timings with nt ?