List Info

Thread: bufcachepercent & samba




bufcachepercent & samba
user name
2006-07-31 01:54:57
I am setting up a Samba fileserver on obsd 3.9-stable
 
I noticed that up until obsd3.3, in section 11 of the faq,
it
recommended
increasing bufcachepercent for fileservers with lots of free
memory.

Now there is no section 11 at all in the faq.

For a box that is basically only going to do Samba, is it
still ok
to increase bufcachepercent to speed things up, and if so,
are there
any limits I should be aware of? Obviously I wouldn't set
it to 95%
but with 1 gb of RAM, is 50% ok.

Thanks,
Craig.

bufcachepercent & samba
user name
2006-07-31 11:07:55
Craig Hammond wrote:
> I am setting up a Samba fileserver on obsd 3.9-stable
>  
> I noticed that up until obsd3.3, in section 11 of the
faq, it
> recommended
> increasing bufcachepercent for fileservers with lots of
free memory.
> 
> Now there is no section 11 at all in the faq.
> 
> For a box that is basically only going to do Samba, is
it still ok
> to increase bufcachepercent to speed things up, and if
so, are there
> any limits I should be aware of? Obviously I wouldn't
set it to 95%
> but with 1 gb of RAM, is 50% ok.

did you read the commit message?
   http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/www/faq/faq11.html

See revision 1.50...
     "Remove some bad stuff...  NMBCLUSTERS gets
people into
      serious trouble, as does BUFCACHEPERCENT. 
Removed."

The problem with documenting knobs like that is people feel
the need to 
twist 'em.  In the process, they demonstrate why OpenBSD
developers set 
things the way they are...though they rarely see the
performance and 
stability problems they caused as a direct result of their
actions. 
Rather, they whine that "OpenBSD doesn't work!"
and waste a lot of 
people's time until we eventually find out that little
detail they 
creatively left out.

THINK A MOMENT...  If there was one magical setting which
was Always 
Best, don't you think that maybe the OpenBSD developers
would have set 
it there?

IF you want to twist knobs, start from the default, see if
you can find 
a real problem (note: if performance isn't absolutely as
fast as need 
be, that's not a problem if you are pulling one 100k file
off the server 
once a minute.  It may be a problem if you are pulling those
same files 
many times a second).  IF you spot a real problem, then
twist just the 
appropriate knobs, and see what happens. 
"Bigger" is not always better, 
it isn't always even faster.

Nick.

[1-2]

about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )