On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Volker Lendecke <[email protected]>wrote:
> > That's what I'd expect if things are as broken as they look from that > dump: > > the client (XP) isn't buffering requests at all, so the window caps out > at > > 64k. The mail from earlier[1] suggests that some people get much better > > speed from other servers (though without enough information to really be > > useful). I don't know the protocol, so I can't tell if there's something > > preventing the client from buffering multiple read requests, for example, > > which I'd expect of any network FS. > > Can you get us a network trace of the fast reads from a > Windows server? > I don't have any faster servers to compare to. I've assumed for a long time that 50-60MB/sec was simply the best you can do with SMB1. It's the mail I saw earlier (as well as the one below) that made me want to double-check this, to make sure that, for example, there's nothing wrong with my system preventing request buffering. (It's frustrating not being able to move my bulk storage out of my work area because of this--halving the streaming speed of my drives from 100 to 50MB/sec is just too much of a penalty.) Here's another one (with much more information, thankfully), claiming 70MB/sec reads and 100MB/sec writes, specifically with a single stream. That's at least notably better than 55 (which I see for both reads and writes, by the way). It's Win7 on the client, not XP64, but still would be interesting to compare. I'll send a mail off-list asking for a trace, unless someone happens to already know the difference so I don't have to bother someone about an old thread. http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2010-June/156653.html -- Glenn Maynard -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
