[Samba] Can't kill smbd process - Samba

This is a discussion on [Samba] Can't kill smbd process - Samba ; Hi, Since this week my Samba keep accumulating smbd process that keep lock on files and neither me as root or samba itself can't kill. The only way to release the locked files is to reboot the machine and this ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: [Samba] Can't kill smbd process

  1. [Samba] Can't kill smbd process

    Hi,

    Since this week my Samba keep accumulating smbd process that keep lock on
    files and neither me as root or samba itself can't kill. The only way to
    release the locked files is to reboot the machine and this is really
    annoying for all the clients. I read in a forum that this might be link with
    a kernel corruption, but this threads hasn't been active in a long time and
    wasn't so clear about the corruption. So I turn on your experiences and
    knowledge to help me find a solution to this problem.



    I run Samba 3.0.26a-3.5 on Opensuse 10.3 with the 2.6.22.17-0.1-default.

    I don't thing the problem come from my smb.conf, the deadtime is set to 10
    minutes but since those process keep a lock on files they are not kill after
    10 minutes of inactivity.





    [global]

    workgroup = Bidon

    server string = PDC - File Server

    log file = /log/samba.log

    server signing = auto

    deadtime = 10

    socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192

    printcap name = cups

    add machine script = /usr/sbin/useradd -c Machine -d /var/lib/nobody
    -s /bin/false %m$

    logon path = \\%L\profiles\.msprofile

    logon drive = P:

    logon home = \\%L\%U\.9xprofile

    domain logons = Yes

    preferred master = Yes

    domain master = Yes

    wins proxy = Yes

    wins server = eth0:10.0.0.11

    wins support = Yes

    ldap ssl = no

    acl group control = Yes

    profile acls = Yes

    map acl inherit = Yes

    printing = cups

    cups options = raw

    print command =

    lpq command = %p

    lprm command =

    store dos attributes = Yes

    strict locking = Yes

    include = /etc/samba/dhcp.conf



    [data]

    comment = data

    path = /data/data

    read only = No

    inherit permissions = Yes

    inherit acls = Yes

    inherit owner = Yes

    use sendfile = Yes

    dos filemode = Yes

    dos filetime resolution = Yes



    [email]

    path = /data/email/

    read only = No

    browseable = No

    blocking locks = No

    locking = No

    oplocks = No

    level2 oplocks = No

    posix locking = No

    strict locking = No

    dos filemode = Yes

    dos filetime resolution = Yes



    Thank you,



    Mathieu Beaudoin

    Responsable des T.I.

    CVT Corp

    Technologies de vitesse variable

    Variable Speed Technologies



    --
    To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
    instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

  2. RE: [Samba] Can't kill smbd process


    TCP_NODELAY is still usefull and has a noticeable improvement in
    responsiveness. SO_RCVBUF=8192 and SO_SNDBUF=8192 are outdated and
    actually make things worse if running with a 2.6 kernel (they do help if
    running on a 2.4 kernel). But I too, am sure changing these will not
    fix your problem (but probably will improve network performance).

    How are you killing the open files? With "kill -9"? I kill locked,
    open files by finding the pid with lsof and then close it with "sudo
    kill -9 pidnumber". I've never had kill -9 fail me and I imagine you
    would have to have serious kernel problems if kill -9 failed to kill a
    pid.3

    James






    -----Original
    Message----------------------------------------------------
    From: samba-bounces+jdinkel=bucoks.com@lists.samba.org
    [mailto:samba-bounces+jdinkel=bucoks.com@lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of
    Ryan Novosielski
    Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 3:55 PM
    To: samba@lists.samba.org
    Subject: Re: [Samba] Can't kill smbd process

    I've seen written here many times that the TCP options are old/no longer
    needed. Not that I expect that removing them will fix anything.

    Seems to me you have an awful lot things defined specifically there. I
    don't know how those relate to the defaults. Or is that testparm -v
    output?

    - --
    ---- _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _
    |Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | |Ryan Novosielski - Systems Programmer II
    |$&| |__| | | |__/ | \| _| |novosirj@umdnj.edu - 973/972.0922 (2-0922)
    \__/ Univ. of Med. and Dent.|IST/AST - NJMS Medical Science Bldg - C630
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFICQqrmb+gadEcsb4RAmjxAKCQudeurwtv7YWf20mPvr/5pTVUqACfbF+z
    bTXN5/lgADDY5qywZKJEzp0=
    =IXls
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
    instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

  3. Re: [Samba] Can't kill smbd process

    On 4/21/2008, James A. Dinkel (jdinkel@bucoks.com) wrote:
    > TCP_NODELAY is still usefull and has a noticeable improvement in
    > responsiveness.


    this is contrary to what the Samba devs have repeatedly said in the past.

    I hope someone will chime in here and set the record straight...

    --

    Best regards,

    Charles
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
    instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

  4. RE: [Samba] Can't kill smbd process

    I meant to specify: it has a noticeable improvement ON MY SYSTEM. This
    is from a personal, subjective view and I don't know that I've verified
    this from any other documentation. I just want to point this out
    because it COULD have been all in my head. I don't think overall
    transfer speed changed, but directory listings and opening up small
    files seemed to be faster.

    James

    P.S. Sorry for the formatting, but I'm posting this from Outlook which
    is not very mailing-list-friendly.

    -----Original
    Message-----------------------------------------------------
    From: Charles Marcus [mailto:CMarcus@Media-Brokers.com]
    Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 11:22 AM
    To: James A. Dinkel
    Cc: samba@lists.samba.org
    Subject: Re: [Samba] Can't kill smbd process

    On 4/21/2008, James A. Dinkel (jdinkel@bucoks.com) wrote:
    > TCP_NODELAY is still usefull and has a noticeable improvement in
    > responsiveness.


    this is contrary to what the Samba devs have repeatedly said in the
    past.

    I hope someone will chime in here and set the record straight...

    --

    Best regards,

    Charles

    --
    To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
    instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

  5. Re: [Samba] Can't kill smbd process

    On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:21:59PM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
    > On 4/21/2008, James A. Dinkel (jdinkel@bucoks.com) wrote:
    > >TCP_NODELAY is still usefull and has a noticeable improvement in
    > >responsiveness.

    >
    > this is contrary to what the Samba devs have repeatedly said in the past.
    >
    > I hope someone will chime in here and set the record straight...


    That's easy -- TCP_NODELAY is default :-)

    Volker

    --
    To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
    instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIDPBTUzqjrWwMRl0RArr0AKCJeRrSIixYYnMcCTLhzf/RAwnnvQCfco2s
    x/gacoEMsDZ8RHI63j0dPwg=
    =guXH
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  6. Re: [Samba] Can't kill smbd process

    On 4/21/2008 3:51 PM, Volker Lendecke wrote:
    > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:21:59PM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
    >> On 4/21/2008, James A. Dinkel (jdinkel@bucoks.com) wrote:
    >>> TCP_NODELAY is still usefull and has a noticeable improvement in
    >>> responsiveness.


    >> this is contrary to what the Samba devs have repeatedly said in the past.
    >>
    >> I hope someone will chime in here and set the record straight...


    > That's easy -- TCP_NODELAY is default :-)


    Well that explains it... thanks...

    --

    Best regards,

    Charles
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
    instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

  7. RE: [Samba] Can't kill smbd process

    Hi,
    Sorry for not responding in a long time, I been really busy these days.

    To kill the process, I use "kill -9 " as root and
    it do nothing, no error message and the process still run.

    I found the possible source of this problem : each night we have a backup
    server (running opensuse 10.3) that connect to the file server (mount -t
    cifs ...) copy the files on his own hard drive, umount the share and then
    start transferring the files on tapes. When I check the swat status page in
    the morning and "ps aux | greo smbd", I got like 20 process or more coming
    for the backup server file transfer and all those process can't be kill by
    "sudo kill -9 pid". From this point some smbd process, that are created by
    normal user use, can't die either and keeps lock on files. One night, I
    shutdown the backup server and the next day every thing was working
    normally, no unkillable process.

    Thank you,

    Mathieu Beaudoin
    Responsable des T.I.
    CVT Corp
    Technologies de vitesse variable
    Variable Speed Technologies

    -----Message d'origine-----
    De*: James A. Dinkel [mailto:jdinkel@bucoks.com]
    Envoyé*: 21 avril 2008 11:43
    À*: samba@lists.samba.org
    Objet*: RE: [Samba] Can't kill smbd process


    TCP_NODELAY is still usefull and has a noticeable improvement in
    responsiveness. SO_RCVBUF=8192 and SO_SNDBUF=8192 are outdated and
    actually make things worse if running with a 2.6 kernel (they do help if
    running on a 2.4 kernel). But I too, am sure changing these will not
    fix your problem (but probably will improve network performance).

    How are you killing the open files? With "kill -9"? I kill locked,
    open files by finding the pid with lsof and then close it with "sudo
    kill -9 pidnumber". I've never had kill -9 fail me and I imagine you
    would have to have serious kernel problems if kill -9 failed to kill a
    pid.3

    James






    -----Original
    Message----------------------------------------------------
    From: samba-bounces+jdinkel=bucoks.com@lists.samba.org
    [mailto:samba-bounces+jdinkel=bucoks.com@lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of
    Ryan Novosielski
    Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 3:55 PM
    To: samba@lists.samba.org
    Subject: Re: [Samba] Can't kill smbd process

    I've seen written here many times that the TCP options are old/no longer
    needed. Not that I expect that removing them will fix anything.

    Seems to me you have an awful lot things defined specifically there. I
    don't know how those relate to the defaults. Or is that testparm -v
    output?

    - --
    ---- _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _
    |Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | |Ryan Novosielski - Systems Programmer II
    |$&| |__| | | |__/ | \| _| |novosirj@umdnj.edu - 973/972.0922 (2-0922)
    \__/ Univ. of Med. and Dent.|IST/AST - NJMS Medical Science Bldg - C630
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFICQqrmb+gadEcsb4RAmjxAKCQudeurwtv7YWf20mPvr/5pTVUqACfbF+z
    bTXN5/lgADDY5qywZKJEzp0=
    =IXls
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



    --
    To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
    instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

  8. Re: [Samba] Can't kill smbd process

    Mathieu Beaudoin wrote:
    > Hi,
    > Sorry for not responding in a long time, I been really busy these days.
    >
    > To kill the process, I use "kill -9 " as root and
    > it do nothing, no error message and the process still run.
    >
    > I found the possible source of this problem : each night we have a backup
    > server (running opensuse 10.3) that connect to the file server (mount -t
    > cifs ...) copy the files on his own hard drive, umount the share and then
    > start transferring the files on tapes. When I check the swat status page in
    >


    rsync would be a much, much better choice for that purpose.


    --
    Toby Bluhm
    Alltech Medical Systems America, Inc.
    30825 Aurora Road Suite 100
    Solon Ohio 44139
    440-424-2240


    --
    To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
    instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

+ Reply to Thread