Still no solution after 5 months(!) - Transfer speed problems
(oplocks?) with Samba 2.0.7 and Win2K Pro
Welsh, Armand
armand.welsh at sscims.com
Tue Dec 19 16:41:03 GMT 2000
Are you sure this is a samba issue? I had a simillar problem with a samba
install on a compaq server, with the compaq NIC (10/100) linked into an ATM
backbone (3Com) via 10/100Mbit switches (3COM). I was able to download
stuff from it lightning fast, but I could not send to it, w/o excessively
long delays. I thought it was samba, but then we discovered that the lotus
Domino software on the server was extremely slow to the desktops. "hmmm...
could this is a config problem in the switch?" I thought... After much
research, I was never able to track down the specific reason for the slow
down, but I was able to resolve the problem. I installed a 3Com 3C509B
(10/100) PCI NIC into the server, and switched off the compaq NIC. After
editing my network config files, I stopped the old nic and started the new
one, and the timing problems went away completely.
So, I caution everyone to verify your network configuration, even try
swapping NICs before giving up, and assuming the problem is samba.
-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: infernix [mailto:infernix at infernix.nl]
-> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 1:09 AM
-> To: samba-technical at us5.samba.org
-> Subject: Still no solution after 5 months(!) - Transfer
-> speed problems
-> (oplocks?) with Samba 2.0.7 and Win2K Pro
->
->
-> Dear readers of the mailing list, co-troubleshooters,
->
->
-> I am posting this for the third time now. In the past few
-> months I have had
-> quite a few reactions, and I am positive many others share
-> our problem but
-> cannot find a solution either.
->
-> Therefore I hope that after 5 months of staring in the dark,
-> someone could
-> finally shed some light on this issue. Here is my second
-> posting, with a few
-> adjustments here and there. Currently, I am running a brand
-> new Debian 2.2
-> distro on a P2-266 and I still experience the same slow
-> transfer speeds.
-> Others have found transferring from the Win2K client to the
-> Samba server is
-> fast but from Samba to Win2K is dead slow. A few quotes:
->
-> "i have the same problem ... w2k --> samba works fine
-> (nearly 50M in 30sec)
-> but samba --> w2k is a pitty :(( (50M in more than 26 MINUTES !!)"
-> "mocht je een oplossing vinden voor de trage
-> browsing/transfer door je samba
-> shares enzo... Wil je me dan ook mailen.. ik ben er ook al 2
-> maanden naar
-> opzoek!" (Translation: having same problems, been looking
-> for 2 months).
-> "The problem you described is becoming a chronic problem for
-> me as well ...
-> major oplock problems. I couldn't find any responses to it."
->
-> I know this posting is a pain in the ass to read through,
-> but please, if
-> anyone knows more than we do, help us out. Thanks.
->
->
-> infernix at infernix.nl
->
->
-> My second posting begins here, dated September 1st 2000. The
-> logs are still retrievable. Please read the Anders Öhrt
-> posting too (it's
-> after this post), it contains some more debugging data.
->
->
-> Hi,
->
-> This was posted in august and july, but i have had no
-> reaction since. I
-> didn't really mind then, because i just blamed my old P120
-> server. Hoewever,
-> things changed: I installed a new server at work and at
-> home, and with all
-> those different configurations, the problem still persists!
->
-> Let me sum up what the problem is. I have two machines here.
->
-> The SERVER, a P133 (or 150) with 64MB ram. This machine has
-> a 3com 3c905c
-> NIC.
->
-> The CLIENT, a dual 366 (BP6) with 256MB ram. I have
-> overclocked them to 533
-> (97mhz bus speed), but this is not the issue here, since
-> that would affect
-> windows 98 as well, which it doesnt. Besides, the same
-> problem occurs when
-> not overclocked and on different machines. It has a 3com 3c905C NIC.
->
-> On my CLIENT, i can dual-boot to Windows 2000 or Windows 98.
-> I did a speed
-> test by booting to Windows 2000, running the test, rebooting
-> to Windows 98
-> and doing the exact same test again. I copied a 107MB mp3
-> file from my
-> SERVER to my CLIENT, which gave me the following results:
->
-> Windows 2000:
-> Samba: almost 4 minutes (238 seconds)
-> FTP: 27 seconds.
-> 238 divided by 27 = 8.5 times slower.
->
-> Windows 98:
-> Samba: 26 seconds.
-> FTP: 20 seconds.
-> 26 divided by 20 = 1.3.
->
-> Conclusion: Samba is 1.3 times slower than FTP in Windows
-> 98, and 8.5 times
-> slower in Windows 2000.
->
-> Originally, I was hoping that this is a Windows 2000 client issue.
-> Unfortunately, I have not found a way to tweak Windows 2000
-> to speed up the
-> SMB transfers at all. I have tried to change settings as
-> described in MS
-> Knowledgebase document
-> Q169789, but since this didnt affect FTP, it didnt affect
-> Samba either.
->
->
-> At that time, I had contacted David Collier-Brown. He
-> compared the logs
-> between the transfer of the file in Windows 98 and Windows
-> 2000. This is
-> what came out of that:
->
-> Good news and bad news:
-> I've got comparative logs for win2k vs NT 4.0, and win2k is
-> doing things **very** differently and as much as 8.5 times slower.
-> The bad news is that the cause of problem hasn't jumped out at me!
->
-> Windows 2000 takes 4 minutes 29 seconds to read a file that NT 4.0
-> reads in 1 minute 10 seconds.
->
-> We've narrowed it down to Samba (ftp is fine) and eliminated
-> obvious hardware/networking problems, so I'm now sitting here
-> in filemerge (the Sun visual diff) with snippits of two smbd logs...
-> which I'm about to inflict on you!
->
-> >From Win2k
-> ----------
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:11, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_sesssetup_and_X(805)
-> Domain=[INFERNIX] NativeOS=[Windows 2000 2195]
-> NativeLanMan=[Windows 2000
-> 5.0]
->
-> >From NT 4.0
-> -----------
-> [2000/08/01 18:18:47, 3] smbd/reply.c: reply_sesssetup_and_X(805)
-> Domain=[WORKGROUP] NativeOS=[Windows 4.0] NativeLanMan=[Windows 4.0]
->
-> My Notes
-> --------
-> The domains are different,
-> which may interfere. Infernix,
-> they are really the same machine,
-> aren't they?
->
-> [ Response by infernix: Yes, I set my domain to Workgroup in
-> both Windows 98
-> and Windows 2000.
-> However, since Windows 2000 cannot login to the Samba domain
-> (This is not
-> supported in the regular branch of Samba, only in TNG, as
-> you probably know)
-> the Windows 2000 machine logs in to its own local domain
-> which it calls
-> INFERNIX, the machinename. ]
->
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:11, 2] lib/access.c:check_access(258)
-> Allowed connection
-> from infernix.ggmc.nl (192.168.0.17) [2000/08/01 18:18:47,
-> 2] lib/access.c:
-> check_access(258) Allowed connection from
-> infernix2.ggmc.nl (192.168.0.21)
->
-> infernix is the win2k
-> infernix2 is nt 4.0
->
-> [ Response by infernix: No, infernix is Windows 98 and
-> infernix2 is Windows
-> 2000. In windows 2000
-> i use ip address .21 and in Windows 98 i use .17. Mind you,
-> I am still
-> talking about the same machine here! Both Windows 98 and
-> Windows 2000 run on
-> the same machine because I dual boot them. ]
->
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:39, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(448)
-> switch message
-> SMBntcreateX (pid 1511)
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:39, 3] lib/util.c:unix_clean_name(522)
-> unix_clean_name
-> [/Trance/ferry_corsten-live_at_trance_energy-30-04-2000-2db/f
-> erry_corsten-li
-> ve_at_trance_energy__30-04-2000_2db.mp3]
-> [2000/08/01 18:19:08, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(448)
-> switch message
-> SMBreadbraw (pid 1435)
->
-> Win2k is about to open (create?) the
-> file, at 28 seconds into the log, NT 4 just
-> opened it, 21 seconds into the log.
->
->
-> At this point, win2k goes into a loop doing oplocks 4 times:
-> --
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:39, 3] smbd/oplock.c:initial_break_processing(702)
-> initial_break_processing: called for dev = 900, inode =
-> 338018 tv_sec =
-> 3986f98b, tv_usec = 639c5.
-> Current oplocks_open (exclusive = 1, levelII = 0)
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:39, 3] lib/doscalls.c:dos_ChDir(342)
-> dos_ChDir to /var/log
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:39, 3] smbd/oplock.c:initial_break_processing(702)
-> initial_break_processing: called for dev = 900, inode = 338018
-> tv_sec = 3986f98b, tv_usec = 639c5.
-> Current oplocks_open (exclusive = 1, levelII = 0)
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:39, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(618)
-> Transaction 244 of length 45
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:39, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(448)
-> switch message SMBclose (pid 1511)
-> ---
->
-> After the 4 tries, it starts reading at 18:23:41, one second later
-> --
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:41, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(448)
-> switch message SMBreadX (pid 1511)
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:41, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_read_and_X(2322)
-> readX fnum=4401 min=61440 max=61440 nread=61440
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:41, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(618)
-> Transaction 255 of length 63
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:41, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(448)
-> switch message SMBreadX (pid 1511)
-> ---
->
-> It transfers in a pattern I don't happen to grok:
-> ---
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:41, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(618)
-> Transaction 257 of length 63
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:41, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(448)
-> switch message SMBreadX (pid 1511)
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:41, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_read_and_X(2322)
-> readX fnum=4401 min=61440 max=61440 nread=61440
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:41, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(618)
-> Transaction 258 of length 63
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:41, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(448)
-> switch message SMBreadX (pid 1511)
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:41, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_read_and_X(2322)
-> readX fnum=4401 min=16384 max=16384 nread=16384
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:42, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(618)
-> Transaction 259 of length 63
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:42, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(448)
-> switch message SMBreadX (pid 1511)
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:42, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_read_and_X(2322)
-> readX fnum=4401 min=45056 max=45056 nread=45056
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:42, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(618)
-> Transaction 260 of length 63
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:42, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(448)
-> switch message SMBreadX (pid 1511)
-> [2000/08/01 18:23:42, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_read_and_X(2322)
-> readX fnum=4401 min=61440 max=61440 nread=61440
-> --
-> Anyone know if this indicates a problem?
-> It **looks** like its restarting, but there isn't enough
-> info to tell me...
->
->
-> NT 4.0 is similar, but the start value keeps increasing,
-> which isn't a threatening (;-))
-> --
-> [2000/08/01 18:19:08, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_readbraw(2112)
-> readbraw fnum=4730 start=917504 max=65520 min=0 nread=65520
-> [2000/08/01 18:19:08, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(618)
-> Transaction 154 of length 49
-> [2000/08/01 18:19:08, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(448)
-> switch message SMBread (pid 1435)
-> [2000/08/01 18:19:08, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_read(2258)
-> read fnum=4730 num=16 nread=16
-> [2000/08/01 18:19:08, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(618)
-> Transaction 155 of length 55
-> [2000/08/01 18:19:08, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(448)
-> switch message SMBreadbraw (pid 1435)
-> [2000/08/01 18:19:08, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_readbraw(2112)
-> readbraw fnum=4730 start=983040 max=65520 min=0 nread=65520
-> ---
->
->
-> Windows 2000 finishes up at 18:27:47, while NT does many
-> more pages of read-raws, but ends at 18:19:55
-> ---
-> [2000/08/01 18:27:40, 2] smbd/server.c:exit_server(408)
-> Closing connections
-> [2000/08/01 18:27:40, 1] smbd/service.c:close_cnum(583)
-> infernix (192.168.0.17) closed connection to service mp3
->
-> [2000/08/01 , 2] smbd/server.c:exit_server(408)
-> Closing connections
-> [2000/08/01 18:19:55, 1] smbd/service.c:close_cnum(583)
-> infernix (192.168.0.21) closed connection to service mp3
->
-> win2k has taken 4 minutes 1 second,
-> NT 4.0 only 47 seconds to get here.
->
-> ---
-> Conclusion: win2k is slow, but I don't yet know why. Anyone here
-> able to comment?
->
-> David Collier-Brown.
-> -------------------------------------------------------------
-> ---------------
-> -
->
-> All this has not helped much yet. I really think that there
-> is a serious
-> problem with either how Samba talks to Windows 2000 or how
-> Windows 2000
-> talks to Samba (which might still be solvable on just the
-> client or just the
-> server).
->
-> I didn't really mind that there was no solid solution yet,
-> but now that I am
-> experiencing the same slow transfers at work and on my
-> freshly installed
-> server, I am beginning to wonder what on earth is going on
-> here. Regarding
-> my smb.conf, here are the options which I think might be relevant:
->
-> [global]
-> socket options = TCP_NODELAY
-> # using any of IPTOS_NODELAY SO_SNDBUF=8192 SO_RCVBUF=8192
-> didnt have any
-> effect.
-> [mp3]
-> fstype = "FAT"
-> oplocks = true
-> level2 oplocks = true
->
->
-> I have plenty options to test further, by either using
-> tcpdump or more log
-> dumps. The log dumps are available at
-> http://www.infernix.nl/samba/sambalogs.infernix.tgz if you
-> need more info.
->
-> Please, try to look further into this. I have no idea how or
-> why this is
-> happening, but for me it has grown out to be a real problem,
-> since we are
-> planning a migration to Windows 2000 clients at work, and i
-> _really_ can't
-> tell my boss that this is all the speed we can expect ;(
->
-> Thank you in advance.
->
-> Yours sincerely,
->
-> infernix
->
->
-> ------------------ Anders Öhrt's post:
->
-> I'm having some trouble with my net which seems to have
-> started when I
-> changed by workstation from NT4 to W2k. I have two servers running
-> debian with samba 2.0.7. The servers are a P100 (locutus) and an
-> Athlon 500 (motherbrain), and my workstation (doas-place) is
-> a P2-350.
-> There is almost no other trafic on the net, which is a 100 mb/s
-> switched net.
->
->
-> Sending from locutus to motherbrain I get ~3 mb/s, the other
-> way I get
-> ~600 kb/s. Sending from motherbrain to doas-place I get ~3 mb/s, and
-> about the same the other way. Sending from locutus to my
-> workstation I
-> get about 60 kb/s!
->
-> The low speed from motherbrain to locutus is strange, because there
-> are fast disks in it, and the CPU is about 85% idle which
-> downloading...
->
-> The low speed from locutus to doas-place is of course the problem...
-> I've tcpdumped a bit which might help... Seems like all datapackets
-> are 44 byte, but should be ~1k5... Is that the (only) problem and how
-> do I solve it?
->
-> dump;
-> ----
-> 17:35:21.501168 locutus.metroid.net.netbios-ssn >
-> doas-place.metroid.net.1260: P 401241:402701(1460) ack 3177 win 26532
-> >>> NBT Packet
-> flags=0x1
-> NBT Session Packet
-> Flags=0x140
-> Length=1116 (0x45c)
-> Session packet:(raw data?)
->
-> (DF) [tos 0x10]
->
-> 17:35:21.501305 locutus.metroid.net.netbios-ssn >
-> doas-place.metroid.net.1260: P 402701:404161(1460) ack 3177 win 26532
-> >>> NBT Packet
-> flags=0xfd
-> NBT - Unknown packet type
-> Type=0xFDB66D9F
-> Data: (44 bytes)
-> [000] F7 D8 2C 2E 91 BF 56 84 FE 94 FF D1 AD 9F 9F E5 ..,...V.
-> ........
-> [010] FF FE FF FA 79 7F 36 A4 EF 3D CE 3D E8 4A B2 32 ....y.6.
-> .=.=.J.2
-> [020] 56 C5 F3 AB 4F 1B 6E 0D 33 BC 11 91 V...O.n. 3...
->
-> (DF) [tos 0x10]
->
->
-> // Anders Öhrt
->
-> -----------------------------------------------
->
->
->
->
-> Regards,
->
-> infernix at infernix.nl
->
->
->
->
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list