I have installed a linux server, centos gui server with Raid1, his role will be only a file server. I installed samba and configured it. The file system is EXT3. the server got 4 gigs of memory.There is a program in windows that writes files to the share.I searched and i found that there is some commands that you add and they boost the performance.
I got complains that the writes are not fast enough. Before me another IT guy configured the file server and it was faster, what he told my customer that he changed some command of cache but i dont know exactly what he did. I have been asked to find how to boost the performance.Please give me more commands to try to boost the performance of Samba or tell me if i need to change anything..
My DSL is working and my computer is on line but I would like to optimize my connection for better speed. I found a utility for this at speedguide.net but it was written for Windows.
I saw many people were talking about how to optimize apache and mysql here and also in other forums and blogs. I am currently hosting some sites and some IRCD processes (a tiny network)in a dedicated server with spec:
We got about 30,000 to 40,000 page views per day. I would like to ask people here about the opinion of apache and mysql optimization based on this server spec and current number of page view.
Intel Celeron, 2000 MHz (20 x 100), 400MHz FSB, s478 Northwood core with 128 KB L2 Cache 768 MB RAM: 3 * 256 MB PC133 SDRAM (3.0-3-3-6 @ 133 MHz), DRAM:FSB running as 4:3 Intel Havre D845HV (3 PCI, 1 AGP, 3 SDR DIMM, Audio) (latest BIOS, HV84510A.86A.0050.P15.0305252001) Western Digital 60GB hard disc, WDC WD600BB-75CAA0 SONY DVD-ROM DDU1612, and some generic floppy
[code]....
all in all this was a pretty good machine to run Windows XP SP3, MS office 2000 (or 2003), and some mozilla-based browser (Firefox can work OK, but with "K-Meleon 1.5.4" it's fast as lighting). It has enough horsepower to run CounterStrike at 1024*768 and play MiHD movies with just a few ocasional glitches. Plays DVDs or XVID and MP3s without any problems, and they don't seem to use much resources in Task Manager. Sound, graphics and network subsystem work very good, but this will always be a PC133 SDRAM system hence memory bandwidth problems, and not much can be done about that. Machine was used as office + internet box, with some Winamp music playing in the background and as such it was great.
Now I turned it into (dual boot) CentOS 5.4 development server for developing a nonprofit PHP site.Joomla-based contents load slower from this machine on the intranet then on the regular server online. It's not crazy slow (like pentium 1 @ 166 mhz) but it's definitelly not good either. I think it should be able to run much much better, especially when I remember the Athlon T-bird at 1 GhZ with 512 MB PC100 RAM used to be much more responsive while running web apps on Mandrake 9 (when it came out) with KDE WM, while this cellery runs just server in init 3 (no Xorg or Gnome, just command prompt).
Please advise me how could I enhance the speed of the system. CentOS 5.4 was installed with all settings on default. Everything worked plug'n'play, didn't need to install anything extra. Machine primarily runs Apache2 with PHP and MySQL, SSH and SFTP daemons, not much else I guess. No GUI, mostly it runs headless anyway. I'm mostly annoyed by the way it serves pages, it's like it takes up to 6 seconds to precache some complex PHP page and then poof! whole page appears at once. I'd much rather if it served the contents of the page part by part, gradually filling in the details. I'm not sure if (and how) that can be achieved though. I'd like to optimize servers (mostly Apache) and maybe net config to run smoother and faster.
My server... its CentOS (redhat alike). I need to make the server disable apache server then run mysql command to optimize the databases then re-enable apache server in a specific time daily. Is it possible?
I have a WinXP virtual box and have setup a Samba server to have it use directly a couple of directories on the Linux side. The Samba performance is definitely better than the built-in shared folders of the virtualbox, but there is nothing to write home about either: transfer seem to top at around 3Mbyte/sec.
The machine is a laptop (Core i5 CPU (M520@2.40GHz) and a 7200RPM HDD) running Kubuntu 10.04.The Samba share uses a dedicated "host-only" network adapter. There is an iptable-based firewall to which i added the required 4 statements to let the Netbios traffic go through (without them nothing works...)So, given the hardware, are the 3MB/s a decent figure? And if not, what should I aceeive, and where can I look improve on the current numbers?
I built my own file server based on the Intel Atom 525 and Ubuntu 11.04 (amd64):http:[url]....It has 2 2TB Western Digital Green drives connected via SATA.Internal file transfers (disk-to-disk) using Nautilus zip along at 80 Mb/sec. Over SAMBA, however, I'm getting 35 Mb/sec. Other than creating the shares, I haven't modified smb.conf.have a gigabit network. I've run atop on the receiving computer and it isn't being taxed. At 35 Mb/sec the file server is also not being taxed.
Should I be focusing on testing the onboard NIC (RealTek 8111E) in the file server or looking at SAMBA?
I installed a month or so ago a Samba File Server along with Active Directory integration in my company. I choose to install on my newly created raid array, all in ext3 filesystem. The purpose of this fileserver is to have lots of files from the different departments on the company (all windows workstations except mine). Everyone has a private folder and a department folder, along with the common folder for all employees.did I made a mistake formating all to ext3? would I get a significant increase in performance if I resize the current ubuntu partiton and created a new NTFS new one and move the files to it?
I need to know is there any way to record or tracking or make logging if when user samba delete files or folders i can know that, cause sometimeon samba server some users complain they lost files, though i have daily backup and i can restore their files, i just want to know if or maybe some other users in one group accidentally move or delete the files.
Can anyone tell me in performance tunning of apache-tomcat and jboss application server?when I deploy some application in apache-tomcat the performance is say 100 users per second and incase of jboss it is even worst (35-40 users per second)i want to improve my performance 1000 uesrs per second..
I have a weird performance issue with a centos 5 running a nfs server and a rh8 client. I think the fact that it is rh8 client should be downplayed. It is just that with rh8 client the performance degradation seems more clear. See test details below OS in server is Centos 5 x86_64 kernel 2.6.18-92.1.22.el5
1Gb connection between machines File to test over NFS is a 1GB file. First of all I wanted to measure how the network alone performs while using NFS. So in the server side I run a "cat" command on the 1GB file to /dev/null. Please note that the disk read speed is about 98MBs. At this point the file system has the 1GB file cached in memory. In the client side a "cat" on the same file gives me a speed of about 113MBs. It seems then that the bottleneck in this instance is the network and it is very close to nominal speed. So the network performance is really good. (BTW I know that the server got that file from cache because a vmstat or iostat shows no disk activity.)
The second test is reading from disk with no caching involve. In the server I flushed the 1GB file from the memory. For instance by reading another 5GB file and I repeat the same thing as above in the client (a cat on the 1GB file). Now, the server has to go to disk.(vmstat or iostat shows the disk activity). However the performance, now, is about 20MBs, I was expecting something closer so 90MBs. (since the reading speed in the server in the first test showed 98MBs).
This second test was repeated for ext2, ext3, xfs with no significant differences. A similar test using a RH8 NFS server and client gets me close to 60MBs for a 1GB file not cache by the file system in the serverSince network speeds and disk read speeds are not the bottlenecks ... what or where is the limiting factor then?
On my local apache web server I had installed gnome desktop, because I wanted it to use as a TV. But when I installed the gnome desktop, my requests for web pages became terribly slow (4-5 seconds!). When I deinstalled the gnome desktop, the request where fast again. But I still want to watch TV on my server, so I wander if people know why the gnome desktop harms the performance of the server?
PS. with gnome desktop, ping was <1 ms, samba server worked like charm, wget localhost was <1 ms, but for some reason, when tried to get a webpage from my webserver to a remote machine, it took seriously 4-5 seconds to load a page.
I just wanted to know if having my laptop set to ondemand, will this affect performance in any way? I realize it increases the clock speed to performance when the CPU is under load, but does the time it take to go from ondemand to performance affect speed? Will there be any noticeable difference between the two setups? I have a dual core intel at 2.2GHz when in performance. When ondemand is set with no load it downclocks to 800Mhz.
I have to rename a group of machines in my little samba domain (tbd backend) but there is an ugly bug that makes this impossible. have set 'rename user script' variable corectly, also checked all configurations.When i change computer name in my windows box, it shows an error saying something like "Error calling remote procedure"Looking on server side, username for the machine gets correctly changed in /usr/passwd, and also in samba database.But samba log says:
=============================================================== [2009/10/08 11:10:32, 0] lib/fault.c:fault_report(42) INTERNAL ERROR: Signal 11 in pid 11052 (3.0.33-3.7.el5_3.1)
I am hosting apache service on the CentOS5.4. I configure the Apache in default setting mostly. But keep getting complaints from others about the website download too slow, pdf cannot download at all, flash cannot play smoothly, etc.. But on my own machine, everything works fine. Is there any tool for analyzing this problem?
how much of a performance impact full disk encryption (say, AES 256-bit) has on disk-related activities? On one particular project I'm involved in I am trying to weigh out security vs performance issues.
I am starting to get bottlenecks in the loading of webpages via squid. It is not the actual playback of video that has performance issues, this is very good. However, when a webpage is first requested, it is the initial response that takes more than a few seconds to load the page. I am wondering how to troubleshoot the issue as I don't know whether it is squid, the dns lookup, the number of users, RAM, or the bandwidth. Bandwidth seems to be the least likely since the server has a high bandwidth and video streaming appears to have no problems. I do not have caching turned on yet, which would certainly help because I do not want to cache flb, mp3, etc. files and the last time I turned on caching the performance was actually worse. The slow loading of pages has only just beguin to creep into the performance, it wasn't an issue before.
I broke down and spent some $$ on a new server for home use. I mostly do technical research and testing, plus store movies and music. My interests are mainly in the IET iscsitarget performance.
Server system consists of an AMD Phenom II 550, 8GB RAM, 1x 80GB system partition, and a LVM-vg0 software raid5, running Ubuntu 10.04 server x64.
The vg0 consists of 3 x 500GB 7200RPM SATA drives (mdadm) sliced up with 100GB for VBox VMs, one slice is an iscsitarget for a Windows 2k3 server, and another slice iscsitarget for a desktop.
With this setup, the win2k3 server is booted from a .vdi image stored on the ext4 lvm raid5 vg0. Here are the DiskTT stats.
Code:
However, with the Win2k3 server and the MS iscsi initiator I get using DiskTT:
Code:
The speeds are incredibly slow considering a non iscsi connection is screaming fast in comparison. Any ideas?
I am installing Red Hat Linux enterprise 5.0 on HP proliant ML 110 G5 with X3330, 8 Gb 2 X 250gb SATA Config. Time required for full istallation is around 2hours 30 minutes. What could be the reason?
I wasn't sure where to post this question so administrators, feel free to move it.I have a media server I set up running Ubuntu 10.4 Server, and I set up a software raid 5 using 5 Western Digital Caviar Green 2TB 7200RPM 64MB drives. Individually they benchmark (using the Ubuntu's mdadm GUI (pali?somthing...) at about 100-120mb/s read write.I set the raid 5 up with a stripe size of 256kb, and then I waited the 20 hours it took to synchronize. My read speeds in raid are up to 480mb/s, but my write max is just under 60mb/s. I knew my write performance would be quite a bit lower than my read, but I was also expecting at least single drive performance. I have seen other people online with better results in software, but have been unable to achieve the results they have gotten.
My bonnie++ results are more or less identical (I used mkfs.ext4 and set the stride and stripe-width).The PC has 2048mb of RAM and a 2.93Ghz Dual Core Pentium (Core 2 Architecture), so I doubt think that's the bottle neck. These drives are on the P55 (P45*) South Bridge SATA controller.
i didn't know where to post this so i decided on "General" section. I'm working with kind of an "old" computer, low HDD and graphics, but decent amount of RAM and good processor ( for an old computer, and it was bough for company use ) So i want to speed things up a bit, i don't mind waiting a bit longer when GIMP is loading, but FireFox is giving me issues, loads slower, and internet isn't as fast as its suppose to be, i started playing a game on facebook recently and it was fine, but lately it takes for ever to load and do things in it, i tweaked some options in it, and its better, but now when i click response time is slower ( altogether is quicker but still not enough ) Is there anything i can do?
I have a Nagios server with a lot of hosts and services; around 400 services (in all) and 150 hosts. Most of these services are programmed in bash language. The problem is the server has a high load average; between 5 and 11. The server has the next features:
- Intel Xeon 2.66GHz Dual Core - 4MB cache memory - 1GB RAM memory - 50GB hard disk
Is this load average normal? Should I program the plugins with C?
I have recently migrated my file server over to a HP Microserver. The server has two 1TB disks, in a software RAID-1 array, using MDADM. When I migrated simply moved the mirrored disks over, from the old server Ubuntu 9.10 (server) to the new one 10.04.1 (server).I Have recently noticed that write speed to the RAID array is *VERY* slow. In the order of 1-2MB/s order of magnitude (more info below). Now obviously this is not optimal performance to say the least. I have checked a few things, CPU utilisation is not abnormal (<5%) nor is memory / swap. When I took a disk out and rebuilt the array, with only one disk (tried both) performance was as to be expected (write speed >~70MB/s) The read speed seems to be unaffected however!
I'm tempted to think that there is something funny going on with the storage subsystem, as copying from the single disk to the array is slower than creating a file from /dev/zero to the array using DD..Either way I can't try the array in another computer right now, so I though I was ask to see if people have seen anything like this!At the moment I'm not sure if it is something strange to do with having simply chucked the mirrored array into the new server, perhaps a different version of MDADM? I'm wondering if it's worth backing up and starting from scratch! Anyhow this has really got me scratching my head, and its a bit of a pain! Any help here would be awesome, e-cookies at the ready! Cheers
I have several server (mailserver, webserver and lot of fileserver) all are 32 bit slackware and I am satisfied! My company plan to upgrade our server and buy a 64 bit server maybe amd x3 or opteron? Is slackware 64 bit will help boost my server performance? Or will I stick to 32 bit for now?
