Still no solution after 5 months(!) - Transfer speed problems (oplocks?) with Samba 2.0.7 and Win2K Pro

[infernix]

Hi,

> information. According to your test, Windows98 is faster than Win2k,
> right? Then, which device drivers are you using for you '3com 3c905C
> NIC', on each OS? Is it from Microsoft, or is it from 3Com?

This is only partially true. Both OSes are very fast with FTP. Only Samba is
slow on Win2K. This simplifies the problem, because you can be sure that:

1) There is no ovbious misconfiguration in the hardware settings
2) This is not a Win2K/Win9x TCP/IP thing (otherwise it would affect FTP
too)
3) There is no change in the smb.conf and therefore it is not evidently
influenced by the Samba configuration file.
4) The server is apparently not to blame since it works fine in Windows 98.

I tried both OSes with the Windows drivers and the 3Com drivers. Made no
difference.

> If no packets were lost, then run smbd with large number of debug
> options ( like... 5 or 6 ... I usually use 10 ), and see the list of
> requests. It might simply that since Win2k is newer version of
> Windows, they might be simply sending lots of nasty request (^^;).

I already did that. The logs are retrievable:
http://www.infernix.nl/samba/sambalogs.infernix.tgz. Some parts of these log
files were already looked into, as shown in my posting. I explained some
other details there too.

> Run Samba server normally, and than look at your machine's load
> average using vmstat ( or anything is okey ), especially CPU load.
> Are you having enough CPU power? are you having enough Memory?

This was my first guess, but there's 128MB memory in there and its a P2-266.
It should by all means be fast enough. Besides, if this would be the case, I
would suffer bad performance in Windows 98 too.

> How about trying Samba-2.0.7-ja-2.1 instead of Smaba-2.0.7?

I am yet to try this. I will, but this is not the real solution to the
problem since IMHO the main branch should implement any patches/fixes for
this. But I will see if I can try it out tonight.

> What OS are you using for server? Linux?  Of which version? Did you
> try FreeBSD or NetBSD? Socket layers of *BSD are lot better than
> Linux version.

This is also irrelevant, because the problem only surfaces on Windows 2000
clients. However, fyi, I am running Debian 2.2 (Linux) with kernels 2.2.18
and 2.4.0-test12.


It's just a shame that apparently nobody is looking into this issue. This
isn't just a single case. I have had over 10 emails stating that they had
the exact same performance problem. Sigh...



Regards,

infernix