Windows XP vs Samba and asynchronous IO
David.Collier-Brown at Sun.COM
Sat Apr 9 19:56:38 GMT 2005
If you can capture the packets with ethereal, you can
measure the latency and transfer time and confirm/deny that.
I have scripts for doing so for http on Solaris, so if
you get a capture, email it to me and I'll have a look.
James Roper wrote:
> Hey guys,
> I've been doing some experimentation with asynchronous read routines in
> the Linux CIFS VFS client. I've come across some interesting things
> when comparying Windows XP to Samba that I thought you guys might be
> able to explain.
> When I first did my tests, I was copying a 173MB file from my laptop to
> my desktop, they were linked directly with a crossover cable on a 100mb
> network and had a 0.2 millisecond ping time. My laptop was running
> Linux 2.6 with Samba 3. These are my results:
> Test * Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average
> Async 19.711 19.723 18.977 19.470
> Sync 21.809 21.105 21.033 21.315
> So there was about a 7-8% speed up. Since then, the harddrive on my
> laptop died, so I replaced the harddrive and installed Windows XP on
> it. It now has a 0.5 millisecond ping time in the same environment.
> So, doing the same test, I find that using synchronous read routines
> it's averaging about 1 minute 10 seconds, and with asynchronous routines
> it's averaging 24 seconds, a 60-70% speed up. Does this sound
> right/surprise you at all? My guess is that the Windows XP network
> stack is very slow, it can handle high bandwidths but has a really high
> latency. Any other explainations?
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
Sun Microsystems, Toronto | some people and astonish the rest
davecb at canada.sun.com | -- Mark Twain
More information about the samba-technical