Re: SuSE 10.0 Samba server problem (I was 'linamac').

From: Bent (bent_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/17/05 

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:47:13 +0545

Dear Joe

I am very sorry that you had to _retest_ just because I am to stupid.
Because "large readwrite = No" is working! I don't know what I did
wrong to first time I tried. Another thing is that I have seen that
sometimes after sharing the throughput is not good, but after some
seconds it jumps to 7-9MBytes/s.

After getting "large readwrite = No" to work, the download speed
jumped from 200-300KBytes/s to around 1MBytes/s - GREAT! on my
100Mbits network copying a large file (~1GB). Now I can use my old
computer as diskserver for my videorecordings and it is nice that the
upload speed is so good. The way I want to use it - is to grab video
from camera to WinXP disk, upload to server (~7MBytes/s) and render
from server (at ~1MBytes/s) to WinXP disk and burn it to DVD.

I have tried to change the socket options SO_SNDBUF & SO_RCVBUF and I
get better performance using these options. I created one 100MBytes
file and 100 1MBytes files and got:
Upload from laptop to Linux the option does not matter. 100MB ~15
seconds and 100 x 1MB ~18 sec.

Download after large readwrite = No:
default (no buffer option): 100MB 2min13sec 100x1MB 5min24sec
SO_SNDBUF & SO_RCVBUF=65535: 100MB 1min41sec 100x1MB 4min55sec
SO_SNDBUF & SO_RCVBUF=8192: 100MB 1min34sec 100x1MB 6min45sec

Thank you very much for helping me with this problem.
Bent

JDB <jdb@aon.at> wrote:

>Bent wrote:
>> Thanks Joe, but it did not help.
>
>I'm so sorry! But I'll keep trying to help You to solve that (..
>annoying M$-Naturally-Implemented-Problem)!
>
>> I think my description is not to good, so I try again: the problem is
>> that the download and upload speed is very different. I can upload
>> from the Windows XP client at 7-9Mbytes/s whereas the download speed
>> is only 200-300Kbytes/s.
>
>No, Bent!
>I really think I understood what You meant, and You described fine. :-)
>
>At my Site it just was the other way around. I didn't sniff with
>Ethereal, but it looks like one side of the connection is sending a lot
>of Resend-Packages requests. I think it is the _sending_ (w2k) side, so
>thats really "funny".
>I did not check it fine grained. I had to do my job .. not sciences! ;-)
>
>So:
>I had a similar slow speed in one direction, as You reported.
>The _download_ wen't as fast as the clients (w2k, here) harddisk was
>able to write away the data (about 16 MBytes/s).
>The other way arund it took 'ages'. Maybe the 200-300 Kb You saw, but I
>think it was even slower. I tested with a (one, not many small) ~600
>MBytes-File. Transfers initiated at the client (just drag'n'drop with
>explorer and a stop-watch around).
>
>Ok! I just _retested_ it, to be able to give exact values:
>
>Data: a file with 593074176 Bytes
>
>1. #large readwrite = yes <-- default! "rcsmb stop; rcsmb start"
>
> download (samba --> w2k) 33:49 (seconds:100th seconds)
> upload (went make coffee) 04:54:90 (!!)
>
>2. large readwrite = no # <-- so _not_ the default
>
> download 53:26 (? - But *I* know!)
> upload (no time for coffee) 00:38:90 (2 GB Mem., lazy write)
>
>Turnaround! So I preferred the 2nd setting here .. ;-)
>This is perhaps what You experience the other way around!??
>
>First I thought of a faulty cable (no switch, just crossover!).
>
>I can't exactly say what was happening (in winsock-terms), but
> large readwrite = no
>was the speedup parameter. I also tried around with different socket
>options too, but the old settings left the best performance:
> socket options = SO_KEEPALIVE IPTOS_LOWDELAY TCP_NODELAY
>
>But that was not such a big deal, as the connection was really so slow,
>that the socket options (eg SO_SND/RCVBUF) where only fine tuning,
>compared to the speed gain the "large readwrite = no" option gave.
>
>The settings should be effective with every new connection, if I
>remember right. But I did a rcsmb restart everytime I changed something,
>to trigger down what helps and what not (to exclude "Knowledge-Errors").
>
>The described things are just what I have here whith my suse 9.3 (not
>exactly) and a w2k Server as the _client_.
>SAMBA acts as the local and domain master. w2k has
>HKLM\...\Browser\Parameters\IsDomainMaster Auto, and SAMBA has "os level
>= 65". With that settings, Windows-Explorer-Browsing works very fine.
>
>But I am very shure that that phenomenon was not related with anything
>like DNS or browsing related. You can be shure if You just use
>IP-Adresses, and not any names.
>
>Bent, I hope You'll find it! Bad Story, M$ related! I am nosy for replies!
>
>Joe
>
>> If I check the communication by Etherreal it is as follow:
>> Upload: the client send ~16Kbytes (10-11 TCP packets) of data and
>> then send a SMB Write AndX Request to the server, the server then
>> answer by sending a microsoft-ds [ACK]..
>>
>> Download: the server send 2 TCP packets of data, the client then send
>> a microsoft-ds [ACK], server send a SMB Write AndX Request.
>>
>> I don't know anything about the communication protocol, so please
>> help.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Bent
>>
>> linamac <honk@idony.info> wrote:
>
>
>
>Original Messages:
>>>Bent wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have a SuSE 10.0 with Samba 3.0 server and have throughput problems:
>>>>Copying from Windows XP client I get a throughput of 7MB/s to 9MB/s,
>>>>but from Samba server to Windows XP client only 200KB/s to 300KB/s.
>>>>They are connected via a Linksys router.
>>>>
>>>>What is the problem, configuration or how can I get this to perform
>>>>better?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks
>>>>Bent
>>
>> linamac <honk@idony.info> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I had to struggle with that too.
>>>
>>>My solution was a global setting in smb.conf:
>>>"large readwrite = no"
>>>
>>>Was a hard job to figure that out, so I hope I help a _lot_ people to
>>>spare some time.
>>>
>>>The upload speed to samba still is slower than the dowmload speed, but
>>>_much_ better than without this setting.
>>>
>>>This problem is introduced with w2k/XP/3k.
>>>It also looks like it only appears at 100/1000 Mbit network speeds.
>>>
>>>In my opinion they changed the TCP/IP stack (buffering, locking, bursts,
>>>packet size tuning, etc.) in a form that is not compatible with _any_
>>>other OS than that three. Even w95/98 get trouble, when a XP Machine is
>>>hung into the net.
>>>
>>>So that article really is NOT funny, but simply a lie:
>>>english:
>>>http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/2005/02-03interoperability.asp
>>>german:
>>>http://www.microsoft.com/austria/fakten/analysen.mspx
>>>
>>>There are lots of other problems with that too. Eg with database
>>>programs that directly manipulate databases on the server (without ODBC,
>>>or other "Servers").
>>>Look for "oportunistic locking" if You are interested further in that.
>>>
>>>So that is a M$ "Problem" - maybe introduced by heart ... ("just throw
>>>away w98 and buy XP") - and has nothing to do with the distro or other
>>>OSses.
>>>
>>>Hope that helps!
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>(reachable at www.compijoe.com -> "Kontaktinfo")

Relevant Pages

  • RE: strange upload trouble
    ... > The server is set to unlimited connections, ... > I start to upload a file. ... >, the server drops the connection and the ... FTP servers are not capable of holding more than one concurrent transfer to ...
    (microsoft.public.inetserver.iis.ftp)
  • Re: Can I?
    ... To upload to a website, ... It doesn't matter whether it is a dial-up or broadband connection, ... server or my own server when I am connected via Orange Broadband. ... for using the web space. ...
    (uk.education.staffroom)
  • Re: Connection to web server lost uploading files of 100mb
    ... The original error is related to dodgy connectivity in our office, ... About how long is it taking to upload a file this large ... The Web server connection was closed. ... The connection to the Web server was lost. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: Silly query !
    ... The UpLoad Speed of a typical ADSL Connection is usually around about ... Connection Speeds - a Byte is normally 8 bits, ... YouSendit.com Server?) ... WebSpace, using FTP? ...
    (uk.people.silversurfers)
  • Re: File Upload - Security Issues
    ... You want to upload a file for what reason and ... these viruses have less chance of being able to execute (even if succeeded ... :> file and what pitfalls you see re: security might be helpful on this ... :>: files to an IIS server that doesn't have MS Office actually installed? ...
    (microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript)