[Samba] Samba Client with Windows XP share slow performance
I'm getting awful performance when trying to write to our new NAS and/or a Windows XP share. In short, I'm getting just under 1/2 the speed that I can get if I mount a Linux share on the Windows box and send the files that way. Here are the test results: From XP to Linux via FTP 47MB/sec From XP to Linux via SAMBA 40MB/sec From Linux to XP via CIFS 21MB/sec Now, this is much better than the performance I am getting from our SuSE 9.3 stock servers using the 2.6.5 kernel. This can only get about 10MB/sec. We have tried many different socket options with little to show for the effort.7 Is this to be expected? Is there no way to get the performance the same? Thank you in advance for your help. Will -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Samba Client with Windows XP share slow performance
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 03:22:34PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm getting awful performance when trying to write to our new NAS and/or a Windows XP share. In short, I'm getting just under 1/2 the speed that I can get if I mount a Linux share on the Windows box and send the files that way. Here are the test results: From XP to Linux via FTP 47MB/sec From XP to Linux via SAMBA 40MB/sec From Linux to XP via CIFS 21MB/sec Now, this is much better than the performance I am getting from our SuSE 9.3 stock servers using the 2.6.5 kernel. This can only get about 10MB/sec. We have tried many different socket options with little to show for the effort.7 More details on the Linux mount please ? Well, I'm not exactly sure what information would be useful. Here is some things I can think of. I simply did a mount -t cifs //windowsxpmachine/xfertest /home/xfertest Here is some more machine information. Please let me know if this is not what is needed. uname -a Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.20-1.2925.fc6 #1 SMP Sat Mar 10 19:15:16 EST 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux modinfo cifs.ko filename: cifs.ko version:1.47 description:VFS to access servers complying with the SNIA CIFS Specification e.g. Samba and Windows license:GPL author: Steve French [EMAIL PROTECTED] srcversion: 1F9612E98A836FE3CFEA30A depends: vermagic: 2.6.20-1.2925.fc6 SMP mod_unload 686 4KSTACKS parm: CIFSMaxBufSize:Network buffer size (not including header). Default: 16384 Range: 8192 to 130048 (int) parm: cifs_min_rcv:Network buffers in pool. Default: 4 Range: 1 to 64 (int) parm: cifs_min_small:Small network buffers in pool. Default: 30 Range: 2 to 256 (int) parm: cifs_max_pending:Simultaneous requests to server. Default: 50 Range: 2 to 256 (int) rpm -qa|grep samba system-config-samba-1.2.35-1.1 samba-3.0.24-1.fc6 samba-common-3.0.24-1.fc6 samba-client-3.0.24-1.fc6 free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 2070904 4277361643168 0 20632 284708 -/+ buffers/cache: 1223961948508 Swap: 2031608 02031608 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Tracking users
I'm about to setup a proxy to track a users's Internet usage through our Linux server. I would like to be able to tie the IP address to the users's logon ID. The only program that I think uses that ID is Samba. Does anyone know of a way to tie these pieces of information together? Sorry if this is not the right place to ask this question. Thank you in advance. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Standardized Benchmarking?
quote who=Alexander Lazarevich I'd be very interested in such a site, as long as people acutally put data there. I've wanted to see other's benchmarks/setups for years. Getting people to actually talk is hard. Why don't you post your results? I've put some of mine on there. I have three more machines on 2 different networks I want to benchmark and post the results. I invite everyone and anyone to post any Samba benchmarking information that they may have on the site. http://www.dcsnow.com/mambo/phpBB2/index.php -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] Standardized Benchmarking?
quote who=Peter Szmrecsanyi Good idea! Bonnie++ is good, I also like tiobench as it benchmarks the block device's IO capabilities... I used a stopwatch as well, I suppose a small program that will copy a large file and give back a rate would be useful in benchmarking. I suppose that as far as standardizing, well all you need to is to specify the file size and type (gz/zip for example). A good idea would be to bench small files, reasonably sized files yet smaller than RAM and then a big file (say 4GB) which must be bigger than RAM... That way you can get an idea of what RAM - RAM and Disk - Disk transfers are like and how they differ, with a medium sized file you'd get a mixture of RAM and Disk. I agree that different size files should probably be tested. If some of the Samba developers want to chime in, that would be great (hint hint). I'm thinking one large transfer and one small. I currently use a 4gb file for the large transfer and have used 10,000 100k files in about 100 different directories. I looked through my 30+ Compaqs I have sitting in my back room. I didn't see any of the PPros left. I must have either gave them away or used them somewhere else. Let me continue checking. I know I should have 2 somewhere. If you could, please post your results on the site. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: AW: [Samba] Performance problem when writing large files!
quote who=[EMAIL PROTECTED] First thanks for your fast replay, I'll going to check with FTP tomorrow in the early morning because there are less peoples online. You'll hear from me tomorrow. Are you using a newer distro? The format of top has changed. Are you noticing high HI and/or LO values? On older versions of top, I believe both HI and LO are rolled into the iowait state. If those values are high (above 30% if you ask me), then you could have a problem with your IRQs. The usual cause is UDMA not being enabled but I think it could also be caused by the BIOS assigning multiple devices to the same IRQ (in the case of add-on cards such as SCSI or RAID). -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] excessive TCP retransmissions with samba 3.0, slow file opening RESOLVED
quote who=Jeremy Anderson Yeah, SMB is so blame chatty, and so impatient, that it just cacks on a hub. I'd never have believed it before, but when they can get a 24-port 10/100 DLink switch for $91 from newegg (shipped!), why mess around with technician time? At typical consultant bill rates, that switch will cost them less than an hour of technician time. Although a new switch did not fix my problem, it greatly improved performance (2x speed). A 90 second load time for my client's primary application is still not acceptable though. I have yet to load a network sniffer to see what else might be going on. The funny thing is, everything worked fine when the box was Redhat 7. When I upgraded to FC3 the issue started. I wonder what changed. So many possibilities. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Standardized Benchmarking?
Hello all, I'm creating a site where people can share their benchmarks. If you are interested, the site is at (I just started on it so it has the stock graphics and color scheme still): www.dcsnow.com/mambo I would like some thoughts on what would be a good way to standardize the testing so the results are more comparable. Is Bonnie+ a good program for hard drive speed testing? Is there a better option? I personally prefer hdparm but that is not an option for those who have SCSI. And what about the client to server copies? I personally just copy the file and use a stopwatch. I could write a program for Windows that would automate the process if one doesn't exist. So, lots of questions. Any help would be appreciated. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] Horrendously slow transfer speeds in FC3 is driving me crazy!!! Please help...
quote who=Peter Szmrecsanyi OK, I've done the tests I'd said I'd do and here are the results... The tests were simple, set up a samba share on the computers in question and use a windows PC and a Linux (smbclient) PC to read a 350 MB files of the share: Setting up a samba server (to share files) on both my notebook (FC3 w/ Samba 3.0.10) and my desktop computer (P4 w/ 512 MB of RAM, FC1 w/ Samba 3.0.7) yielded transfer rates better than in Windows (both are dual boot) and very surprisingly slightly better than FTP, I was amazed!!! Installing Samba 3.0.14a on the ProLiant 2500 without ACL support did not make any difference on the transfer rate. Removing samba 3 and installing version 2.2.12 actually worsened the transfer rate by 25%! Wait, I'm confused. Did you use different versions of Fedcora Core? If so, that makes the test results somewhat suspect. I would suggest installing FC3 on all the systems involved and make sure they are all updated to the same versions. Also make sure you are using the same or very similar Samba configurations. Once you do that, you can pretty much exclude software issues. I also suggest shutting down any services that are not involved in the test before benchmarking. Finally, I suggest benchmarking with a much larger file (I usually use a 4gb .tar.gz). The reason is, with a 350mb file, much (if not all) of the file can be cached in RAM and thus not really testing your drive subsystem. I've found that my test results are much more predictable with the large file as opposed to when I was using a smaller file. I realize it's a lot of work to do a fresh FC install on all the machines but you really do have an odd issue. Also, what was the speeds you got with all your machines? -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Horrendously slow transfer speeds in FC3 is driving me crazy!!! Please help...
quote who=Peter Szmrecsanyi I have a 100Mbps network, which can yeild a maximum tranfer rate of 12 MB/s, if you take the TCP/IP subsystem overhead into account you'll realise that more than 11 MB/s is bearing on the impossible. Using both the desktop and the laptop I got nearlly 11 MB/s, one was 10,11 the other was 10,72. Using FTP I got 9,96 and 9,69. With the proliant I get a max of 1.6 MB/s, the same as I get with my IBM machine (acting as a firewal/gateway) which has RedHat 7.2... Wow, 1.5mb/sec vs 10mb/sec. That's a big difference. I doubt a network card would fix the issue. If you have been watching Top and your HI and LO CPU states haven't been high ( 40%), then I don't think you are having an issue getting information to/from the NIC. You know what, I think I have a Compaq machine somethwere with a Pentium Pro 200mhz CPU in it. It's not the same machine as what you have but it might be worth me setting it up and running some tests. Tonight I'll run down to my storage and see what I have. Have you verified all your BIOS settings? I know you have checked this but I was limited to 1.5mb/sec when I was having DMA issues. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] Gigabit Throughput too low
quote who=Duncan, Brian M. Following up to my own issues, I have determined that it def seems like Samba is some how introducing my issues. For the heck of it I tried FTPing tonight to this same box that I described my issues with below. Transferred 4, 4 gig files and managed to sustain somewhere between 15-21 Megabytes per second. Never dropped to a crawl like it does copying the files via Samba. There were some pauses while the server must have been clearing it's dirty cache, etc.. But very small, not 6-8 seconds I would see with Samba, with FTP it would drop from 20 MegaBytes per sec to like 16 then go right back up to 18 then 20 in a second.. So I guess I will look further into tweaking Samba. I use a 4gb file for all of my speed tests. I have never experienced the issues you are having. Although I'm not getting as much performance as I would like, I'm able to sustain about 14.5MB/sec transfer rate. Here is my system specifications: AMD Duron 1.3ghz 512 mb PC133 SDRAM Abit motherboard 2 WD 120gb IDE hard drives 1 Seagate 28gb IDE hard drive Intel gigabit NIC Netgear gigabit switch I have not tweaked my FC3 installation at all except to enable DMA transfers on one of my drives (for some reason, it didn't set it by default). My FTP and Samba results are very cloe with FTP getting about .75MB/sec faster rates. You have a LOT of drives. Even with top notch controllers and a quality motherboard, you are going to have some issues there. I might be able to get a little better performance if I tweak things a bit but not much. If I watch Top during the transfer my CPU states bounce around like crazy. So, in short, try a fresh install of FC3 without any tweaks and see what kind of performance you can get. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
re: [Samba] Horrendously slow transfer speeds in FC3 is driving me crazy!!! Please help...
quote who=pb When trying to improve upon the 7 Mbyte/sec I found that nothing helped at all. Compiling with different flags (O3, etc), made no difference (cpu load very low anyway) Kernel made no difference (I used Slakware's v.8, v.9 and currently use v.10) With or without Hyperthreading on the P4 enabled (via custom kernels) made no difference.Different 100TX patch cables made no difference. It was the crap switch in my case. Following the advice from you and others, I tried a new switch. The time to open the application went down from 3 minutes to about 1.5 minutes. This is a great improvement but I fear it treated the symptom and not the problem. A minute and a half to open an application is still far too long. The amount of data going over the network is huge. The network light flashes constant for the entire 1.5 minutes. Next I'll try a network sniffer and see what is being transmitted. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] Horrendously slow transfer speeds in FC3 is driving me crazy!!! Please help...
quote who=Peter Szmrecsanyi Great a reply!!! I thought everyone had given up on me! OK for the specifications, it's a Compaq ProLiant 2500 server with: - Dual Pentium Pro (200MHz) - 256 MB EDO RAM - 36GB RAID(0) Compaq Raid Array (two 18GB SCSI disks) hdparm -tT gives: /dev/ida/c0d0p4: Timing cached reads: 192 MB in 2.02 seconds = 95.11 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 46 MB in 3.03 seconds = 15.18 MB/sec - Compaq Netelligent Integrated 10/100 TX NIC I can do FTP at 9 MB/s but the absolute max I can get samba up to is about 4 MB/s. I've tried installing version 3.0.14a, I'm compiling the old version 2.2.12 as I write this... I managed to get quite a performance boost when I compiled the latest version for the i686 architecture (100% performance increase using smbclient from another machine). What is annoying is that and NFS client in windows doesn't perform better than the samba client (using a Linux client NFS is slightly faster than FTP). I'm going to try compiling samba 3 without ACL support, then I'm going to try to install samba 2.2.12 if that doesn't solve it then I'll settle for a hardware issue and try to get hold of a 3C905 (3com NIC), after that I'll be out of ideas... Have you taken a close look at top while doing the transfer? I also noticed that FC3 is more of a memory hog than previous versions. I found that 256mb of memory was way too low for most of my systems. I was getting a lot of swap space usage. I use hotsanic to graph my usage information. This might be a good idea for you also. It would help a lot. If you get any swap space usage, that is a clear performance killer. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] excessive TCP retransmissions with samba 3.0, slow file opening
quote who=Jeremy Anderson Hello all! I've got a Fedora Core 3 box running Samba 3.0.8. It serves a variety of roles, including mail server and samba server. The mail server is quite fast, but the smb server generates lots and lots of TCP retransmissions (as seen in ethereal). The general consensus is that this is new in the last few weeks. One user has been reporting speed problems for some time, but no metrics were ever gathered. Jeremy, I have a similar problem at one of my clients. The problem is mainly with a piece of software called Proseries (by Intuit). The software takes 3-5 minutes to open on two of the machines on the network. one of them is brand new. The third machine has no problem at all. It's not the oldest either. Go figure. I'll replace the hub and see if that helps. If you get a solution, please let me know. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Horrendously slow transfer speeds in FC3 is driving me crazy!!! Please help...
quote who=peter Hello, I recently posted a message with the subject: Strangely slow transfers speeds with samba 3.0.10 and FC3... My problem is basically that I've setup a samba server with Fedora Core 3, the version used is 3.0.10-1.fc3. I can put files on the server at reasonable speeds, but getting them from the server with a Windows 2000/XP client is another matter, the speeds drop to a pathetic rate. With smbclient (in Linux) it's even worse; the speed falls to 1/10 of the rate! OK, the figures: a 540MB file when transferred via FTP or NFS (Linux client) takes about 61 seconds (rate is around 8MB/s), via samba (win 2k/XP) takes over 4 minutes, via smbclient (Linux) takes about 20 minutes!!! Does anyone have any idea why smbclient is so slow? Note that I'm using CIFS as SMB with Samba 3 is even worse! Is there something drastically wrong with the Fedora versions of Samba? Hello, I've seen several people post similar issues as yours. Perhaps it is hardware related? Can you post your hardware specifications? I've done some benchmarking over the past few days and I'll show you what I have: Samba Server AMD Duron 1.3ghz Abit (?) k7a or something like that motherboard (KT133 chipset) 512mb PC133 SDRAM Intel gigabit NIC WD 120gb hard drives Netgear gigabit switch (no jumbo frames) Fedora Core 3 Kernel 2.6.10-1.766_FC# Samba 3.0.10-1.fc3 Now I can FTP to and from the server getting in the 14.5 - 15 MB/sec range. When I use Samba I get from 12.6 - 14.4 MB/sec. I use a 4gb .gz file for testing. Since my server does many things, I've noticed that it can take a minute or so for the transfer rates to settle down. hdparm -tT /dev/hdc average results: Timing cached reads: 306.785 Timing buffered disk reads: 33.785 Given my hdparm results, I should be able to do better than 14MB/sec. Next I'll try copying from one drive to another and see how long that takes. If needed, I could post my smb.conf file but there really isn't anything in there. I just used the default one and added my share info. So, in short, I don't think there is a problem with Fedora Core 3. There could be some issue with your hardware or configuration. Perhaps the new version of Samba is a memory hog and requires 256mb or more to run smoothly? I guess you could take a look at top and see if you have any high states. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Benchmarking Samba
Hello all, I've been trying to get a feel for where my server performs in comparison to other servers in it's category. I was wondering if anyone has setup a site dedicated to listing various benchmarking results using Samba? If not, would anyone be interested in such a site? I would be willing to setup and maintain the site but I would need a lot of help getting benchmarks. I don't have access to a very wide range of machines (only 10 or so). Anyway, if there is already a site, great. If not, and I get enough response, I'll set one up. Please let me know if you are interested. --- Willis Yonker -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Poor Samba Preformance
quote who=Steve Jr Ramage I recently upgraded a part of my network to Gigabit ethernet, basically between my Linux machine and my main windows machine, is now gigabit. The problem is that, and the whole reason I went with it, is to get faster speeds with samba. I've only been able to get 13.4 MB/s as a maximum transfer speed. I don't expect to be able to get 125 MB/s. If I use HTTP I can get around 18 MB/s, and that would be fine I suppose for now. Now what samba can do is, that I can get two connections to two different machines going at about 13 MB/s one and 12 MB/s (100 Mbps) the other, and they don't really affect eachother, so the bandwidth is there, but getting samba to send as much as possible down one connection seems to be a problem. iperf between the machines, managed to get 528 Mbps. I have had similar problems with transfers. A good test would be to make a large file (greater than 2gb) and FTP it from your Samba server to your Windows client. If the FTP goes substantially faster than the Samba transfer of the same file, your Samba configuration needs some help. This has not usually been the case for me. Some information on your hardware would help. If you have IDE drives, what does hdparm -i say on the share drive? Also what does hdparm /dev/(hd?) for the drive say? Are you using UDMA, 32bit, multi-IO etc? Also, take a look at top when doing the large transfer. If you get hi hi and wa values (40% or higher) the problem is probably hardware related. Currently my wa and hi values combined when doing a large transfer are about 80%. I was only getting 1.5MB/sec when I first upgraded to FC3. Then I modified hdparm and now I get about 18MB/sec. This still isn't the best that the hard drives can do, but it's the best my mobo/CPU can. Next I'm going to upgrade those and see what I can get. If any of this info is in error, please someone let me know. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] Slow performance with QuickBooks
That's strange. Samba shouldn't be able to get close to FTP speeds. I was able to get 10.5MB/sec with FTP and only 7.59MB/sec with Samba. I'm running on a switched 100Mb network. The network seems to be my limitation in my case as my server hard drives seem to be able to output about 20MB/sec. I can get the same speeds on Win98 as I can on WinXP. You have to tune a default Win98's TCP/IP performance to get the best results out of it. quote who=Brandon Lederer I used an Excellent Loaded WINXP computer today. Samba is outspeeding FTP. Approaching 7 MB / sec on reads, 6 MB / sec on writes. Linux sees these speeds on FTP. Unable to test sambaclient on Linux. This isn't anything to complain about, albeit there is _better_. But a decent 98SE machine cant touch these speeds. Is there any explanation as to why? -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Re: Am I getting the best performance?
John H Terpstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Me wrote: Did you check the impact of increasinf the SO_RECVBUF and SO_SNDBUF to 128KByte? No I have not. I will try it though. I have 512MB of RAM in my server so I'm not too worried about memory. Let me know what you find. Okay, here is a list of my recient test results. If you want more, just let me know. DateSource Destination Amount of Data in megabytes Time in seconds Speed of Xfer in mb/min Speed of Xfer in MB/sec Used speedtest.tar.bz2. 3/17/03 /dev/hddwyonker 1972.375328 360.80 6.01 I did an ftp transfer as a baseline test. Booted to my Linux partition. 3/17/03 /dev/hdcwyonker 1972.375632.40 10.54 Used speedtest.tar.bz2 3/17/03 /dev/hdcnyonker 1972.375268 441.58 7.36 Another FTP transfer 3/17/03 /dev/hdcnyonker 1972.375199 606.50 10.11 Used speedtest.tar.bz2. Changed to socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=131072 SO_SNDBUF=131072 3/17/03 /dev/hdcnyonker 1972.375263 449.97 7.50 Used directory Changed to socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=131072 SO_SNDBUF=131072 3/17/03 /dev/hdcnyonker 2,026 288 422.04 7.03 Used speedtest.tar.bz2. Changed to socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192 3/17/03 /dev/hdcnyonker 2,026 277 438.80 7.31 Used speedtest directory. Changed to socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192 3/17/03 /dev/hdcnyonker 2,026 286 424.99 7.08 7.5MB/sec doesn't seem too bad. But I still think I can do better. I may lower my standards a little. If I can get to 8 or 8.5MB/sec I'll be happy. I still think I should be able to do 9MB/sec. FTP can do 10.5MB/sec. Does Samba really have 30% more overhead than FTP? File locking and such are not issues since I've been doing test with both directories of files and one big zip. Any other suggestions would be much appreicated. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Re: Am I getting the best performance?
John H Terpstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Matthew Daubenspeck wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 06:49:07PM +, John H Terpstra wrote: All my server file systems are ext3. Good results then. Try ext2fs. Should ext2 perform better then ext3? Try it! Simple enough to answer this question - try it. You can simply mount an ext3 partition as ext2 right? -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Am I getting the best performance?
Okay, I've been chasing performance for a while now. I have no idea if I should be trying to get better performance or if I'm getting all I can out of my hardware. Here is the information: /sbin/hdparm -I /dev/hdd /dev/hdd: ATA device, with non-removable media Model Number: ST328040A Serial Number: 7BY034XB Firmware Revision: 3.07 Standards: Supported: 4 3 2 1 Likely used: 5 Configuration: Logical max current cylinders 16383 16383 heads 16 16 sectors/track 63 63 -- CHS current addressable sectors: 16514064 LBAuser addressable sectors: 55704096 device size with M = 1024*1024: 27199 MBytes Capabilities: LBA, IORDY(can be disabled) Buffer size: 512.0kBQueue depth: 1 Standby timer values: spec'd by Standard R/W multiple sector transfer: Max = 16 Current = 16 DMA: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 *udma4 Cycle time: min=120ns recommended=120ns PIO: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4 Cycle time: no flow control=240ns IORDY flow control=120ns Commands/features: Enabled Supported: *READ BUFFER cmd *WRITE BUFFER cmd *Look-ahead *Write cache *Power Management feature set *SMART feature set *DOWNLOAD MICROCODE cmd HW reset results: CBLID- above Vih Device num = 1 /sbin/hdparm -Tt /dev/hdd /dev/hdd: Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.95 seconds =134.74 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.43 seconds = 26.34 MB/sec /sbin/hdparm /dev/hdd /dev/hdd: multcount= 16 (on) IO_support = 1 (32-bit) unmaskirq= 1 (on) using_dma= 1 (on) keepsettings = 0 (off) readonly = 0 (off) readahead= 8 (on) geometry = 3684/240/63, sectors = 55704096, start = 0 /etc/samba/smb.conf socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_KEEPALIVE SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192 I'm running Redhat 8.0 using a custom built 2.4.20 kernel. The drive referenced above is a Seagate 7200rpm UDMA-33 IDE hard drive. I did a 2GB copy from Linux to a Windows98SE machine using Samba. I got 5.85MB/sec. I did the same copy on a Windows XP machine and got 6.99MB/sec. Then I copied from hdd to hdc and got 6.94MB/sec. (same channel) Then I copied from hdd to hdb and got 9.30MB/sec. (different channel) It seems to me that I should be able to get close to the 9.30MB/sec when transfering over the network. Still 9.3MB/sec is no where near the 26MB/sec hdparm is reporting... I'm on a 100Mb switch and I'm using 3Com 905TX NICs in both the workstation and the server. I guess the best my network can put out is 12MB/sec. I was hoping to get around 10MB/sec with Samba. Is this unreasonable??? -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
