Re: Samba Problems - SLOW coppies to Windows Client

The hardware probably can't handle full 1GB but it should be way more 
than 199KB/s :)  the server is a true Compaq server so the backplane is 
designed to handle a fair chunk of data, but your right full rate 1GB is 
asking a lot from it.

As far as Architecture goes, they are both local (2 rooms apart) off of 
the same switch. Flat earth as far as these box's are concerned.
I even just changed the switch to a spare cisco 3550 that I had here, 
just to make sure..

Here are some more test...   None are Super quick, but the biggest 
number of interest to me is that a single large file seems way better 
than the directory with smaller files in it..

 From 2003 and desktop to linux box

------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[  4] local linux port 5001 connected with vista port 54804
[  4]  0.0-10.0 sec  74.2 MBytes  62.2 Mbits/sec
[  4] local linux port 5001 connected with server2003 port 23879
[  4]  0.0-10.0 sec  81.3 MBytes  68.2 Mbits/sec

Vista to 2003

E:\Dave's Desktop>iperf.exe -c 10.10.10.11
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to server2003, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[108] local vista port 54823 connected with server2003 port 5001
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[108]  0.0-10.0 sec  77.3 MBytes  64.8 Mbits/sec


FTP of a 115meg file from vista to Linux box averages 9,700KB/s
Copy of 115meg File from Vista to Linux averages 4MB/s
Read of 115Meg File from Linux to Vista averages 5MB/s
Read of 242meg directory (18,000 files in sub dirs) from linux to vista 
124KB/s < --- THIS ONE Sucks...

Copying of 115meg file from Vista to Server2003 average of 9.5MB/s
FTP of 115meg file from Vista to Server2003 average of 7,600 KB/s

Copying of 115meg file from Server2003 to linux 25seconds = 4.6MB/s
FTP of 115meg File from Server2003 to linux 13.13sec = 8.62 MB/s = 
9045.18KB/s

None of the optimizations seem to make a difference in or out.

As far as the config file, I've put back in the 64K buffers, and I have 
tried master browser and os levels in and out.   I haven't set
up a WINS server and the linux box really shouldn't be the master 
browser anyway, it should be the 2003 server.  You really
think adding a WINS server would help ?


Dave





Damian Gerow wrote:
> Dave Lewis wrote:
>   
>> I'm having a problem between windows vista and samba..
>>     
>
> I've never tried to access a SAMBA share with Vista, but I'll see what I can
> do.
>
>   
>> Server is a Quad PIII 700 with 8gig ram, full SCSI Raid and 1Gb connection
>> Desktop is a Quad AMD 4 gig of ram SATA mirror and 1Gb connection.
>>     
>
> Can hardware like that even handle a 1Gb connection?  I mean, sure, there
> should be sufficient CPU to process the incoming traffic, but are the bus
> speeds fast enough to do a full Gb?
>
>   
>> FTP Transfers and everything else seems ok but Samba is garbage..
>> Reading from a samba share to my desktop I get a MAX of 200KB/s.
>>
>> Copies from my 2003 server to the desktop are fine as well.
>>
>> ipref doesn't show anything major.
>>     
>
> So, it's not a raw bandwidth issue.
>
> Some random questions:
>
> 1) What's your network architecture like?  Everything on the same physical
> and logical network?  Any routers, firewalls, bridges, etc. that might
> introduce a second broadcast domain?  It looks like it's a contained /16,
> but I'd like to make sure.
>
> 2) What's traffic like between 2003 Server and SAMBA?  Akin to traffic
> between the Desktop and SAMBA?  Or more like traffic between the Desktop and
> 2003 Server?
>
> 3) Reads in the direction of SAMBA -> Desktop are slow; what about writes in
> the direction of Desktop -> SAMBA?
>
> 4) If you strip out all the optimizations, options, etc., what do you see?
>
> 5) Have you tried to do a tcpdump on the SAMBA server while a read is in
> progress, to see what the traffic actually looks like?
>
> Some comments on your configuration file...
>
>   
>> [global]
>>         read raw = yes                     # Default
>>         write raw = yes                    # Default
>>     
>
> It's possible your desktop is acting funny; try changing these to 'no' and
> see if that helps.  Unlikely, but possible.
>
>   
>>         oplocks = yes                      # Default
>>         max xmit = 65535                   # Default
>>         dead time = 15                     # Default is 0
>>         getwd cache = yes
>>         lpq cache = 30
>> [okplace]
>>         veto oplock files = this/that/theotherfile
>> [badplace]
>>         oplocks = no
>>     
>
>
> I'm assuming the below all falls under [global], and not [badplace]...
>
>   
>> workgroup = LEWIS
>> server string = Samba Server %v
>> log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
>> max log size = 50
>> log level = 5
>> hosts allow = 127. 10.10. 192.168.1.
>> map to guest = bad user
>> security = user
>> socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_NODELAY IPTOS_THROUGHPUT
>>     
>
> Assuming everything's on the same network, IPTOS_THROUGHPUT is probably
> extraneous here.  I'd consider adding those 64k buffers back in, though.
>
>   
>>    os level = 250
>>     
>
> You know, I'd always thought that the *lower* the value, the higher the
> priority.  Turns out I'm wrong.
>
>   
>>    preferred master = yes
>>    dns proxy = no
>>     
>
> Unrelated, but have you thought about a WINS server?  Since you're pushing
> to be the master browser anyhow, WINS isn't going to hurt you at all, and
> could possibly help a fair bit.
>
>   - Damian
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1769 - Release Date: 11/5/2008 7:17 AM
>
>   

-- 
OCLUG general discussion list
[email protected]
http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/oclug