Hello, I am running a fileserver with smbd here. The server is a 64bit 2.8 GHz Celeron D with 2GB RAM, running 64bit Debian, Samba version 3.0.23c. It is running as a pure fileserver so its only CPU load is serving files. The client I am doing the tests from is WinXP Pro SP2. It is connected via Intel e1000 gbit ethernet (both the server and client use e1000 chipsets). I have done a raw tcp benchmark (using netio) and the network IS capable of transferring 120 MB/s. The problem is: The maximal transferrate when reading from the fileserver is limited to almost exactly 50 MB/s. The 50 MB/s are reached when the file I'm using for the benchmark is completely cached in the fileserver's RAM. CPU usage while reading: smbd is using around 10%, top says: Cpu(s): 2.0%us, 6.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 82.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 10.0%si, 0.0%st The only network option my smb.conf contains is: socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_SNDBUF=65536 SO_RCVBUF=65536 - which is everything I could google for optimizing the samba network speed. I have this problem since I set up the fileserver almost a year ago, my debian packages have always been up to date. I also tested it with a friend's notebook with a new XP installation and did not get over 50 MB/s so I doubt that my XP is borked. Can someone please investigate this issue? I am willing to help testing. Thanks, Leo B.
Jean-Vincent BAYARRI
2006-Nov-20 11:32 UTC
[Samba] Samba fileserver limited to 50 MB/s on gbit
Hi, did you force your interfaces in full-duplex mode? (use the mii-tool package for your debian and the advanced options for your NIC card under windows) I had poor performance issues between a FreeBSD server and WinXP client (around 6 Mb/s for a 100 Mb link), and I greatly improved it (around 70-80 Mbps) after forcing the FD mode. (sometimes intermediate switches do not properly perform autoneg) Le Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 12:23:25PM +0100, Leo B. a ?crit :> Hello, > > I am running a fileserver with smbd here. > The server is a 64bit 2.8 GHz Celeron D with 2GB RAM, running 64bit Debian, > Samba version 3.0.23c. > It is running as a pure fileserver so its only CPU load is serving files. > The client I am doing the tests from is WinXP Pro SP2. > It is connected via Intel e1000 gbit ethernet (both the server and client > use e1000 chipsets). > I have done a raw tcp benchmark (using netio) and the network IS capable of > transferring 120 MB/s. > > The problem is: The maximal transferrate when reading from the fileserver is > > limited to almost exactly 50 MB/s. > The 50 MB/s are reached when the file I'm using for the benchmark is > completely cached in the fileserver's RAM. > CPU usage while reading: > smbd is using around 10%, top says: > Cpu(s): 2.0%us, 6.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 82.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 10.0%si, > 0.0%st > > The only network option my smb.conf contains is: > > socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_SNDBUF=65536 SO_RCVBUF=65536 > > - which is everything I could google for optimizing the samba network speed. > > I have this problem since I set up the fileserver almost a year ago, my > debian packages have always been up to date. > I also tested it with a friend's notebook with a new XP installation and did > > not get over 50 MB/s so I doubt that my XP is borked. > > Can someone please investigate this issue? > I am willing to help testing. > > Thanks, Leo B. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba-- *************************************************************************** * Jean-Vincent BAYARRI Ing?nieur syst?me & r?seau * * Service Informatique Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chauss?es * * 58, boulevard Lefebvre 75732 PARIS CEDEX 15 * * Tel 01 40 43 51 70 Fax 01 56 56 16 99 * ***************************************************************************
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Vincent BAYARRI [mailto:bayarri@lcpc.fr] > did you force your interfaces in full-duplex mode? > (use the mii-tool package for your debian and the advanced > options for your NIC card under windows)> Le Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 12:23:25PM +0100, Leo B. a ?crit : > > I have done a raw tcp benchmark (using netio) and the network IS > > capable of transferring 120 MB/s.... besides to make sure, my switch indicates via LEDs that all connections are full duplex. Leo B.
Jean-Vincent BAYARRI wrote:> Hi, > > did you force your interfaces in full-duplex mode?Gigabit halfduplex is rare. Stick to autonegotiation on a gigabit network. Mogens -- Mogens Kjaer, Carlsberg A/S, Computer Department Gamle Carlsberg Vej 10, DK-2500 Valby, Denmark Phone: +45 33 27 53 25, Fax: +45 33 27 47 08 Email: mk@crc.dk Homepage: http://www.crc.dk
It seems bottleneck of harddisk On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:41:13 +0100 Mogens Kjaer <mk@crc.dk> wrote:> Jean-Vincent BAYARRI wrote: > > Hi, > > > > did you force your interfaces in full-duplex mode? > > Gigabit halfduplex is rare. > > Stick to autonegotiation on a gigabit network. > > Mogens > -- > Mogens Kjaer, Carlsberg A/S, Computer Department > Gamle Carlsberg Vej 10, DK-2500 Valby, Denmark > Phone: +45 33 27 53 25, Fax: +45 33 27 47 08 > Email: mk@crc.dk Homepage: http://www.crc.dk > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
On 11/20/06, Nguyen Kim Huy <huy@vn.nec-tokin.com> wrote:> > > It seems bottleneck of harddisk > > That was my first reaction as it is difficult to sustain 50MB/s filesystem transfers (unless the files are large and a raid is used) but he said the file was cached and also if it was waiting for the disk it would have shown up as wa time in top. John
> -----Original Message----- > From: John Drescher > On 11/20/06, Nguyen Kim Huy <huy@vn.nec-tokin.com> wrote: > > > > > > It seems bottleneck of harddisk > > > > That was my first reaction as it is difficult to sustain 50MB/s file > system transfers (unless the files are large and a raid is > used) but he said the file was cached and also if it was > waiting for the disk it would have shown up as wa time in top.Exactly. I read the file several times on the server until it was cached. Notice also that the local transferrate is like 500 MB/s then. Leo B.
On 11/21/06, Leo B. <spam-goes-to-dev-null@gmx.net> wrote:> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Drescher > > On 11/20/06, Nguyen Kim Huy <huy@vn.nec-tokin.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It seems bottleneck of harddisk > > > > > > That was my first reaction as it is difficult to sustain 50MB/s file > > system transfers (unless the files are large and a raid is > > used) but he said the file was cached and also if it was > > waiting for the disk it would have shown up as wa time in top. > > Exactly. I read the file several times on the server until it was cached. > Notice also that the local transferrate is like 500 MB/s then. > > Are you using ldap? Is the file at least 1 MB?John
> Are you using ldap? Is the file at least 1 MB? > JohnThe file is 1GB of course! I am not using LDAP. Leo B.
It seems like nobody is going to respond to the issue anymore. Can somebody tell my how I can email this to the development team directly? Leo B.
On Friday 24 November 2006 13:41, Leo B. wrote:> It seems like nobody is going to respond to the issue anymore. > Can somebody tell my how I can email this to the development team > directly? > Leo B.The development team read this list already. If you can demonstrate that there is a Samba bug then file a bug report. https://bugzilla.samba.org - John T.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:05:38 +0100 "Leo B." <spam-goes-to-dev-null@gmx.net> wrote:> > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Drescher > > On 11/20/06, Nguyen Kim Huy <huy@vn.nec-tokin.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It seems bottleneck of harddisk > > > > > > That was my first reaction as it is difficult to sustain 50MB/s file > > system transfers (unless the files are large and a raid is > > used) but he said the file was cached and also if it was > > waiting for the disk it would have shown up as wa time in top. > > Exactly. I read the file several times on the server until it was cached. > Notice also that the local transferrate is like 500 MB/s then. > > Leo B.But your client computer does not use cache?. Your copy a file on samba server to client computer HDD, so it may still have posibility of harddisk bottle neck at your client computer!> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
> -----Original Message----- > From: Nguyen.Kim.Huy@vn.nec-tokin.com > > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:05:38 +0100 > "Leo B." <spam-goes-to-dev-null@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: John Drescher > > > On 11/20/06, Nguyen Kim Huy <huy@vn.nec-tokin.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems bottleneck of harddisk > > > > > > > > That was my first reaction as it is difficult to sustain 50MB/s > > > > file > > > system transfers (unless the files are large and a raid is > > > used) but he said the file was cached and also if it was > waiting for > > > the disk it would have shown up as wa time in top. > > > > Exactly. I read the file several times on the server until > it was cached. > > Notice also that the local transferrate is like 500 MB/s then. > > > > Leo B. > > > But your client computer does not use cache?. > Your copy a file on samba server to client computer HDD, > so it may still have posibility of harddisk bottle neck at > your client computer! >No, I wrote a client program which does the reading benchmark without writing anything to the harddisk, it just reads the file from the server and shows the speed. No bottleneck there. I also assured that the file is not cached on client side. Leo B.