Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, SecretSquirrel, notfred
notfred wrote:Except if I understand it correctly, Ubuntu is doing the copying, and Vista is just offering a dumb file share. Also, that issue would only occur if he was playing media, and it still wouldn't be that bad (unless he had 3 NICs, because that problem was compounded by each NIC in the system, though I believe that bug was fixed in SP1).I suspect the problem is on the receiving end, Vista has known issues with gigabit networks if there is any sound at the same time.
UberGerbil wrote:Have you seen any transfers that max out your gigE connection? Even though Vista thinks it has one, are you sure it's 1Gb/s from end to end? Have you turned on jumbo frames?
Usacomp2k3 wrote:I haven't turned on jumbo frames because I wasn't sure how well the switch could handle splitting frames up, but more importantly, it's not easy to do in linux.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Some online sites said that disabling ipv6 could help, but I couldn't actually figure out how to do that (an example of why linux isn't ready for the masses).
install ipv6 /bin/trueUsacomp2k3 wrote:I haven't turned on jumbo frames because I wasn't sure how well the switch could handle splitting frames up, but more importantly, it's not easy to do in linux.
bitvector wrote:Maybe I'll look into that down the road. Doesn't really sound like something I want to learn right now.It's possible you could be limited by SMB 1.0 (without tuning). I'm not too familiar with SMB internals, but I believe SMB 1.0 had pretty low buffer sizes and other quirks which would limit it to much less than wire speed on a gigabit connection (versus something like HTTP). Vista SP1 talks the new SMB 2.0, which has improved these things, but Samba/Linux CIFS don't talk SMB2. There are some Samba/CIFS tunables you can tweak to see if it helps (like SNDBUF/RCVBUF sizes). I remember having to do that to get better performance out of Samba.
bitvector wrote:Ok. That makes sense. Nevermind thenUsacomp2k3 wrote:Some online sites said that disabling ipv6 could help, but I couldn't actually figure out how to do that (an example of why linux isn't ready for the masses).
I seriously doubt it has anything to do with IPv6. Some people used to recommend disabling IPv6 for one particular reason: to deal with high latency DNS queries in Firefox, because it would send out IPv6 DNS queries and some home routers/crappy DNS servers would act weird, causing high latency for DNS resolution.
bitvector wrote:That sounds like what I was remembering. It didn't work anyway.Usacomp2k3 wrote:I haven't turned on jumbo frames because I wasn't sure how well the switch could handle splitting frames up, but more importantly, it's not easy to do in linux.
A layer 2 switch won't split frames up; if non-jumbo capable devices are on the same segment, it just won't work. But you shouldn't need jumbo frames to get higher transfer rates than 8-9MB/sec in general.
notfred wrote:You could try checking things with iperf
On the Ubuntu box, "sudo apt-get install iperf", on the Windows box download it from http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/#download
You run "iperf -s" on one end and it starts a server that will sit there listening until you Ctrl-C it. On the other end you run "iperf -c <IP of server>". It will do a transfer for 10s and report the speed. That should tell you if you have a fundamental network problem or if it is something in the Samba side of things. Try it both ways round.
notfred wrote:One thought I did have is maybe the PCI network card is sharing an interrupt with something that is badly behaved and rate limiting the interrupts (all IRQ service routines need to be called for the shared devices). "cat /proc/interrupt" should show who is sharing with the network interface <eth0>.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:So just to confirm the iperf shows 784 to the desktop and 92.2 to the laptop. So it's gotta be a samba problem. I'd use my WinSCP to transfer over ssh, but it's slower.
I'm pretty much done copying the data that needs to be copied, so it's all playing with theory from this point on. Still helpful knowledge, IMHO.
mattsteg wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote:So just to confirm the iperf shows 784 to the desktop and 92.2 to the laptop. So it's gotta be a samba problem. I'd use my WinSCP to transfer over ssh, but it's slower.
I'm pretty much done copying the data that needs to be copied, so it's all playing with theory from this point on. Still helpful knowledge, IMHO.
In the future, maybe try setting up an FTP server on the server? That'd likely run faster. Of course, if performance on a day-to-day basis is an issue investigating samba tweaks makes a lot of sense, although for those to be especially useful you need to figure out how to create shares properly, I suppose.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:What jab?mattsteg wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote:So just to confirm the iperf shows 784 to the desktop and 92.2 to the laptop. So it's gotta be a samba problem. I'd use my WinSCP to transfer over ssh, but it's slower.
I'm pretty much done copying the data that needs to be copied, so it's all playing with theory from this point on. Still helpful knowledge, IMHO.
In the future, maybe try setting up an FTP server on the server? That'd likely run faster. Of course, if performance on a day-to-day basis is an issue investigating samba tweaks makes a lot of sense, although for those to be especially useful you need to figure out how to create shares properly, I suppose.
Thanks for the jab there
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Whatever works for you. Setting up a temp ftp server shouldn't really take that long, though.I tried setting up an ftp server back in the 6.04 days, but never was successful. I hadn't really considered it since then due to most of my needs being satisifed with ssh/WinSCP. Now that I'm in the process of getting Windows Home Server installed on the machine, shares should be much easier to manage.
