Still no solution after 5 months(!) - Transfer speed problems
(oplocks?) with Samba 2.0.7 and Win2K Pro
Rick Day
rick.day at thewarehousegroup.com.au
Wed Dec 20 08:26:16 GMT 2000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anders C. Thorsen
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 December 2000 4:44
> To: rick.day at thewarehousegroup.com.au
> Cc: Welsh, Armand; 'infernix'; Kenichi Okuyama;
> samba-technical at us5.samba.org
> Subject: Re: Still no solution after 5 months(!) - Transfer speed
> problems (oplocks?) with Samba 2.0.7 and Win2K Pro
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 08:34:00PM -0500, Greg Dickie wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you are using Cisco equipment verify the settings on
> both ends. CISCO
> > does NOT autonegociate well at all!
>
> The same goes for many 3Com Switches as well. Actually, sometimes
> (bad firmware), it might force Full duplex on a half duplex
> negotiated connection. Giving _bad_ transfer rates.
>
> --Anders
Personally, I have had two of this type of problem. We use (Nortel)
BayStack 450 switches throughout our lans.
First problem was with our SCO OS unix on Compaq servers. Both ends have to
be set to Full duplex 100Mb manually, autonegotiation gave us half duplex
10Mb speeds with lots of errors. SCO said the connection was Full_100, the
Bay switch said Half 100. This seemed to affect samba a lot more than
telnet - the two main access methods to this box. Bay said the problem was
Compaq, Compaq said Bay. We have tried other NICs with no more success. We
gave up on looking for another solution and just set both ends manually.
The second problem was with (some) Win9x laptops running early Xircom
Realport network PC cards. Interestingly enough the laptops could transfer
files to and from WinNT 4.0 servers and copy TO the samba (SCO) server with
no speed problems, it was just with copying files FROM the samba (SCO)
server down to their laptops that they had the speed problems - speeds were
2-300b/sec - very slow. One of our more enterprising users bypassed the
problem by logging on to WinNT 4.0 Terminal Server and copying that way.
Again telnet did not seem to be affected. Eventually an updated driver for
the Xircom Realport NIC PC card fixed the problem.
We haven't tried W2k yet, apart from some playing around, but then we are
still on Samba 2.0.6, so I would not expect it to work properly without
upgrading samba. Waiting for 2.2 :-)
>
> > Greg
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Welsh, Armand wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:27:59 -0800
> > > From: "Welsh, Armand" <armand.welsh at sscims.com>
> > > To: 'infernix' <infernix at infernix.nl>,
> > > Kenichi Okuyama <okuyamak at dd.iij4u.or.jp>
> > > Cc: samba-technical at us5.samba.org
> > > Subject: RE: Still no solution after 5 months(!) - Transfer speed
> > > problems (oplocks?) with Samba 2.0.7 and Win2K Pro
> > >
> > > I had a similar problem, I too, used this logic. All the
> workstation in the
> > > office using windows98 worked fine. Windows NT/2000
> workstations did not
> > > work correctly. They were all too slow. I tried
> everything. The solution
> > > for me, was that I was overlooking something. The NICs. All the
> > > workstation had Compaq NIC, as were default installed in
> them, except the
> > > winNT/2000 boxes. Thos machines had 3COM 3c509B/C NICs,
> and those were the
> > > nics having a problem. I could do telnet/ftp/http all
> quickly, but lotus
> > > notes, and samba were very, very, very slow. I assumed
> the samba thing was
> > > a timing issue with the way I had samba configured, and
> that notes was a
> > > problem, with how lotus programmed their sockets. I was
> wrong... dead
> > > wrong...
> > >
> > > What the problem turned out being, is that the Compaq
> NICs and the 3Com NIC
> > > don't play well together, with large data packets, or
> even potentially,
> > > fragmented packets. Upon further investigation, I
> discovered, that by
> > > simply replacing my server's NIC with a 3C509B/C
> (actually, it was the
> > > euqivalent server version of the NIC), I was now able to
> access the data
> > > quickly. It was that simple. Now a new problem does
> exist. The server,
> > > now has timing issues when talking to some the other
> compaq servers, that
> > > still had compaq NICs in them, and thus authentications
> would fail to the
> > > shares on occasions. I replaced all the servers' compaq
> NICs with the
> > > 100Mbit server NIC from 3COM, and the problem is now gone.
> > >
> > > -> -----Original Message-----
> > > -> From: infernix [mailto:infernix at infernix.nl]
> > > -> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 10:29 AM
> > > -> To: Kenichi Okuyama
> > > -> Cc: samba-technical at us5.samba.org
> > > -> Subject: Re: Still no solution after 5 months(!) -
> Transfer speed
> > > -> problems (oplocks?) with Samba 2.0.7 and Win2K Pro
> > > ->
> > > ->
> > > -> 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
> > > ->
> > > ->
> > >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Greg Dickie
> > just a guy
> > greg at discreet.com
> >
>
> --
>
> --Anders
>
> Anders C. Thorsen
> PGP Key: http://www.aae.wisc.edu/~anders/anders-pgp.asc
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Only two things are infinite.
> The universe and human stupidity.
> Although, I am unsure of the former.
>
> Albert Einstein
>
>
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list