Frank,

  The current version of Samba/iX  (1.9.16p9) does have
some serious performance problems when using applications
that do a lot of file locking (like Access).  The newer beta versions
of 1.9.17 have worked around this problem by allowing these
locks to be held in memory instead of in a disk file.  This
has helped (so I've read) Access and other databases tremendously.
I'm not sure were Lars is at in porting newer versions of Samba,
but I would guess we won't see any of the beta versions ported
(read: it might be a while).  There are other performance issues
as well, but the tuning options on MPE/iX are quite limited.  I've
noticed that my Windows 95 laptop has definite "pauses" during
large transfer operations that my Windows NT system doesn't
experience.  I've not tracked this down, but I'm sure this is a
fundamental OS difference, and not some Samba/iX setting.

  Samba/iX should still be considered "beta", and I personally
would not put it into a production situation quite yet (although
I do plan too in the future).  My only recommendation for you
at this time is to move the databases to another server, preferably
a Windows NT system unless you can install a 1.9.17 version
of Samba onto one of your '*nix' boxes.

Regards,
Michael L Gueterman
email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.editcorp.com
voice: (888) 858-EDIT -or- (509) 943-5108
fax:   (509) 946-1170
--


----------
From:  Frank Letts[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:  Thursday, August 21, 1997 5:24 PM
To:  [log in to unmask]
Subject:  [HP3000-L] mpe/ix & samba/ix

Plea for help issued to anyone that will listen!

We have a 3000/928 running mpe5.5 and samba 1.9.16 p9, being used
almost totally as a file server.  It *should* be faster than a
scalded dog, but, right now, our users consider it just a dog :(

Clients are pc's running win/95, win/nt, workgroups and 2or3 *nix
boxes.  Slow applicationsare everywhere, and range from access db to
word documents to autocad drawings.  Our users are spending too much
time drinking coffee while waiting for their net-based aps to either
launch or complete, and I'm concerned that it's bad for their health.
(Plus, if it doesn't get better, I expect to be mugged on my way to the
parking lot at night or I'll be applying at the local convenience stores
for a job :(

We tried the suggestd sock opts (TCP_NODELAY, SO_RCVBUF & SO_SNDBUF)
but POSIX doesn't support them.  Any alternates for MPE/IX?

help!

[log in to unmask]