samba - Oct 2004 - Poor linux client performance (comparing to XP)

Hello, 

I haven't found anything useful googling around so I decided to ask here. 

I have a Linux server running Samba on 100Mbit/s ethernet. If I connect to it 
using WinXP, mount some share and download files from it it reaches about 
9MB/s transfer rate. Using FTP gives even higher transfer rates.

BUT 
when I use linux to connect to (linux!) server, mount shares and download 
files then transfer speed reaches only about 3-4 MB/s. Using smbclient is a 
bit faster (0.5-1MB but not always). Using other linux workstations (faster 
machine) i could only boost transfer rate to 5.0-5.5MB/s.

Server and workstation machines are using 2.4.27 and samba 2.2.12 (slackware 
distro).

Is anyone familiar with this issue?


Best regards,
Bostjan Skufca

On Monday 04 October 2004 12:49, bostjan.skufca@domenca.com
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I haven't found anything useful googling around so I decided to ask
here.
>
> I have a Linux server running Samba on 100Mbit/s ethernet. If I connect to
> it using WinXP, mount some share and download files from it it reaches
> about 9MB/s transfer rate. Using FTP gives even higher transfer rates.
>
> BUT
> when I use linux to connect to (linux!) server, mount shares and download
> files then transfer speed reaches only about 3-4 MB/s. Using smbclient is a
> bit faster (0.5-1MB but not always). Using other linux workstations (faster
> machine) i could only boost transfer rate to 5.0-5.5MB/s.
>
> Server and workstation machines are using 2.4.27 and samba 2.2.12
> (slackware distro).
>
> Is anyone familiar with this issue?
You may want to dig more facts:

* is server CPU 100% loaded or not? Client CPU?
* does bandwidth increase if you download several large files
  from same share in parallel?

You may use attached program to collect various statistics.
I compiled it with dietlibc.
--
vda

Holger Krull wrote:
> >>>Is there any patch (official/unofficial) available to fix this
issue?
> >>
> >>None that i know about. You could try using mount.cifs.
> >
> > Arent there any changes needed for the samba server, just use other
mount options?
> 
> No changes on the server side. Just use mount -t cifs if you have that
> in kernel or as module.
large readwrite = yes
>From smb.conf man page:
               This parameter determines whether or not smbd supports
               the new 64k streaming read and write varient SMB
               requests introduced with Windows 2000. Note that due to
               Windows 2000 client redirector bugs this requires Samba
               to be running on a 64-bit capable operating system such
               as IRIX, Solaris or a Linux 2.4 kernel. Can improve
               performance by 10% with Windows 2000 clients. Defaults
               to off. Not as tested as some other Samba code paths.

May help.

Kevin

-- 
| Kevin Wheatley, Cinesite (Europe) Ltd | Nobody thinks this      |
| Senior Technology                     | My employer for certain |
| And Network Systems Architect         | Not even myself         |

Kevin Wheatley a ?crit :
>Holger Krull wrote:
>  
>
>>>>>Is there any patch (official/unofficial) available to fix
this issue?
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>None that i know about. You could try using mount.cifs.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Arent there any changes needed for the samba server, just use other
mount options?
>>>      
>>>
>>No changes on the server side. Just use mount -t cifs if you have that
>>in kernel or as module.
>>    
>>
>
>large readwrite = yes
>
>>From smb.conf man page:
>               This parameter determines whether or not smbd supports
>               the new 64k streaming read and write varient SMB
>               requests introduced with Windows 2000. Note that due to
>               Windows 2000 client redirector bugs this requires Samba
>               to be running on a 64-bit capable operating system such
>               as IRIX, Solaris or a Linux 2.4 kernel. Can improve
>               performance by 10% with Windows 2000 clients. Defaults
>               to off. Not as tested as some other Samba code paths.
>
>May help.
>
>Kevin
>
>  
>
Hello,

I heard (read) about the
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_SNDBUF=8192 SO_RCVBUF=8192
line that resolves some problems.

Maybe could it solve yours.
sam