Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/27/2010 4:37 PM:
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/25/2010 5:30 PM:
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/25/2010 1:28 AM:
The dual-stream one is kindof limited help. The interesting
piece is how Win-Win does its thing faster, so we need to
see that one.
I've been busting
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/25/2010 5:30 PM:
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/25/2010 1:28 AM:
The dual-stream one is kindof limited help. The interesting
piece is how Win-Win does its thing faster, so we need to
see that one.
I've been busting my but trying to get you something meaningful.
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/25/2010 1:28 AM:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:14:36AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 6:51 AM:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
Except that he said I can copy files between the Win2K and WinXP
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/25/2010 12:07 PM:
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/25/2010 1:28 AM:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:14:36AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 6:51 AM:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
Except that he said I can
2010/1/25 Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com:
[...]
This is rather interesting, and disheartening. I've just spent 30 minutes
playing with tshark and windump. For small file transfers, the presence of
the
capture tools running cuts the network interface performance in half. If I
copy
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/25/2010 1:28 AM:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:14:36AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 6:51 AM:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
Except that he said I can copy files between the Win2K and WinXP
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
For raw bandwidth maximization, what port and protocol are used won't
make much difference, if any. In fact it shouldn't make _any_
difference in raw b/w. Communications between the Samba server and
Win2K client appear to be exclusively over TCP 139 at this point
according
Hi
2010/1/26 Linda Walsh sa...@tlinx.org:
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
For raw bandwidth maximization, what port and protocol are used won't
make much difference, if any. In fact it shouldn't make _any_
difference in raw b/w. Communications between the Samba server and
Win2K client appear to be
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 02:11:04PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
The 11MB/s was a different test, which I clearly stated.
It consisted of two concurrent single stream file copies
_from_ the Samba server _to_ a Win2K workstation using
standard Windows Explorer as the file copy program. This
2010/1/24 Volker Lendecke volker.lende...@sernet.de:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 02:11:04PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
The 11MB/s was a different test, which I clearly stated.
It consisted of two concurrent single stream file copies
_from_ the Samba server _to_ a Win2K workstation using
standard
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
Except that he said I can copy files between the Win2K and WinXP
machines at just over 10MB/s in a single stream and max out the 11MB/s
with two streams. I am assuming he used the same client in that test
as he did with the test
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 5:04 AM:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 02:11:04PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
The 11MB/s was a different test, which I clearly stated.
It consisted of two concurrent single stream file copies
_from_ the Samba server _to_ a Win2K workstation using
standard
Michael Wood put forth on 1/24/2010 6:09 AM:
2010/1/24 Volker Lendecke volker.lende...@sernet.de:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 02:11:04PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
The 11MB/s was a different test, which I clearly stated.
It consisted of two concurrent single stream file copies
_from_ the Samba
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 6:51 AM:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
Except that he said I can copy files between the Win2K and WinXP
machines at just over 10MB/s in a single stream and max out the 11MB/s
with two streams. I am assuming he used the
2010/1/24 Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com:
Michael Wood put forth on 1/24/2010 6:09 AM:
[...]
Except that he said I can copy files between the Win2K and WinXP
machines at just over 10MB/s in a single stream and max out the 11MB/s
with two streams. I am assuming he used the same client in
2010/1/24 Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com:
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 6:51 AM:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
Except that he said I can copy files between the Win2K and WinXP
machines at just over 10MB/s in a single stream and max out the 11MB/s
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 6:51 AM:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
Except that he said I can copy files between the Win2K and WinXP
machines at just over 10MB/s in a single stream and max out the 11MB/s
with two streams. I am assuming he used the
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:14:36AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 6:51 AM:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
Except that he said I can copy files between the Win2K and WinXP
machines at just over 10MB/s in a single stream and
Igor wrote:
I don't find it strange at all. Your computer is acting as a traffic
proxy between two samba servers. If you have 100Mb network interface
your bandwidth should split exactly in two.
But he said he doesn't get a split in two when a win2k server
is used (he gets 11Mbps).
Hi Linda:
Looking at some internet resources, it appears that both encryption
and packet signing are off by default. Can u pls let me know how to
disable these on samba server side (on 3.0.x)
Thanks.
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Linda Walsh sa...@tlinx.org wrote:
Igor wrote:
I don't
Learner Study put forth on 1/23/2010 3:31 AM:
Hi Linda:
Looking at some internet resources, it appears that both encryption
and packet signing are off by default. Can u pls let me know how to
disable these on samba server side (on 3.0.x)
Pretty sure they are both off in my case. I did not
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/23/2010 2:11 PM:
Absolutely not. Both interfaces (Samba server and Win2K workstation) are
configured and confirmed to be operating in full duplex mode. I confirmed
this
by forcing the Win2k box to 100FDX. This broke the switch which wants full
Hello fellow Samba users and devs. This is my first post. I've searched
documentation far and wide for Windows, Linux, and Samba, and have not been able
to shed any light on this issue.
I can't get more than 8MB/s during a single file copy stream out of my Samba
server over my 100FDX switched
Hello Stan,
Friday, January 22, 2010, 2:26:41 AM, you wrote:
I don't find it strange at all. Your computer is acting as a traffic
proxy between two samba servers. If you have 100Mb network interface
your bandwidth should split exactly in two.
FTP is a different protocol. You might find the
Hello Stan,
Friday, January 22, 2010, 2:26:41 AM, you wrote:
Check it out, I found it with google:
http://oreilly.com/catalog/samba/chapter/book/appb.pdf
You see out of the box there is about 20% difference between SMB and
FTP performance which corresponds with your experience.
SH Hello
Igor put forth on 1/21/2010 6:04 PM:
Hello Stan,
Hello Igor,
I don't find it strange at all. Your computer is acting as a traffic
proxy between two samba servers. If you have 100Mb network interface
your bandwidth should split exactly in two.
Which should be 5.5MB/s instead of 4MB/s for
26 matches
Mail list logo
