On Tuesday 02 September 2003 06:23 pm, David Rankin wrote: > Lorne > > You got me?? Beyond some tangential knowledge of the past packet > fragmentation issue and the CIFS protocol, I don't have any rabbits to pull > out of my hat. As far as smb is concerned it seems M$'s implementation of > smb(CIFS) is new and unique to XP/2000. I suspect in implementing CIFS for > XP, M$ has only loosely followed the RFC and has done so by design. The > site I posted earlier but can't find now, the "ubhix...." something like > that suggests that the CIFS variety of smb has done just that. > I've been suspicious of a change in the way XP does business, but can't put my finger on it. I may take my traces to an Extreme engineer and see if he can lay his finger on it.
> I don't have a test machine to confirm what you are seeing, but it sounds > identical to the samba 2.07 problem that gave win98 fits. > > Another site that looks promising is > http://hr.uoregon.edu/davidrl/samba/samba-optimize.html See 7.2 Socket > Options. You may be able to either rule in or rule out the fragmentation > issue by follow the test specified. > I am not seeing fragmentation in the trace. It does do things slightly differently, but I've had a hard time really dissecting it today. I'm going to read and tinker with the above suggestions I think. For now, I'll just have to transfer from linux to xp. I use my mdk box more often anyhow. :) I have the bigger drives in the XP box. Guess I'll just use the XP box for storage. hahaha > Good luck. > > -- > David C. Rankin > Rankin * Bertin, PLLC > 510 Ochiltree Street > Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 > (936) 715-9333 > (936) 715-9339 fax > > For those in Texas - Vote NO to prop 12 on September 13th. They're your > constitutional rights. You can either vote NO to keep them or vote yes (or > do nothing) and let the insurers and HMO's take them away in the name of > corporate greed. Your choice. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 5:52 PM > Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP` > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:29 pm, lorne wrote: > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:26 pm, lorne wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:40 pm, David Rankin wrote: > > > > > See http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=157 > > > > I DID go to a web site to download tweaks. There was a little executable > > that > > > did allow for increasing the window size. I've not dug back into the > > registry > > > to see where it made the change, but it has indeed opened up the window > > size > > > to 62420 now. So now the frame count is the same. That is the good news. > > The > > > bad news it is just a slow. ??? frame count 9,000 roughly. 65 seconds to > > copy > > > an 8mb file to linux. From linux to Xp about 5 seconds or less. It went > > too > > > quickly. > > > > > > What is odd about this web site is that even though it says > > > > 2000/XP... virtually all the settings are specific to XP. XP doesn't > > > > have those > > key > > > > > settings. ?? I doubt I want to add those. I can find no reference to > > > > window size on support.microsoft.com either. Odd. > > > > > > OOOPS!! I meant specific to 2000 NOT Xp. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E. > > > > > RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC > > > > > 510 Ochiltree Street > > > > > Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 > > > > > (936) 715-9333 > > > > > (936) 715-9339 fax > > > > > -- > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:26 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP` > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:04 pm, lorne wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 01:46 pm, lorne wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe a small breakthrough. I transfered the same file both > > ways. > > > > > > > > I've > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > even analyzed it yet, but.... there is 25% more frames total > > > > > > > (without subtracting arps or anything) in the slow than the > > fast! > > > > > > > > Not sure yet > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > else I'll dig up. > > > > > > > > > > > > This may prove useful after all. Here is what I've further dug > > > > > > up. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fast transfer uses about > > > > > > > > > > > > protocols > > > > > > > > > > > > nbss 1/4+ total > > > > > > smb 1/4- total > > > > > > tcp 1/2 total > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Slow transfers > > > > > > > > > > > > nbss 5/8 total > > > > > > smb 1/16 total > > > > > > tcp 1/3? total > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Very rough and probably don't add up to 100% but definately some > > > > > > > > > > differences. > > > > > > > > > > > The thing that just popped up at me was that the slow transfer > > from > > > > > > > XP > > > > > > > > > > window > > > > > > > > > > > size of 10220. Linux is using 64240. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now is this enough for some clever fellow to tell how to modify > > > > > > Winders? > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > >-- -- - ---- > > > > > > > > > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > > > > > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >- ---- > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
