[Novalug] Slow SAMBA connection

[Jon Taimanglo]

Sorry about that Sean, I misread, I thought you were sharing from
linux to windows.

Looking at your ifconfig eth0 there doesn't seem to be any errors,
dropped or collisions.  But I would still swap out the nic if not
embedded, otherwise just install a pci nic and connect to it.  I've
had nic cards end up being the problem and they reported little or no
errors.  If you have ethtool, make sure everything is up at 100 full
duplex autoneg on (I've also have had cards not want to auto-negotiate
correctly).

ethtool -s eth0 speed 100 duplex full autoneg off

Jon



On 12/22/06, Sean Timm <TimmSCHome at aol.com> wrote:
>       Update: still having problems.
>
>  I looked and I'm actually running 100baseT, not 10baseT as I claimed
> earlier.  My router lights confirm that I'm connected at 100Mbps as does
> /var/log/messages: "xircom_cb: Link is 100 mbit".  I can't find the duplex
> setting and tools such as mii-tool and ethtool don't seem to work with this
> card.
>
>  filename:
> /lib/modules/2.6.17-10-generic/kernel/drivers/net/tulip/xircom_cb.ko
>  description:    Xircom Cardbus ethernet driver
>
>  I changed the /etc/fstab entry to use cifs as suggested by Brandon:
>
>  //192.168.2.101/Backups_d /net/windows/Backups_d cifs
> username="xxx",password="yyy",gid=sambausersgroup,file_mode=0775,rw 0 0
>
>  I edited the smb.conf file to add Jon's config settings, though isn't that
> file only for server, not client?  I'm not sharing any directories from my
> linux box.
>
>  The transfer is slightly faster alternating between 430 Kbps and 1Mbps, but
> still painfully slow.  I haven't seen an IO error yet.  It is still
> transfering my backup file five hours after it started and has transfered
> 983 MB in that time period.
>
>  Mark suggested that if I "attached as a lettered disk" it might be "very
> much faster."  I don't quite understand this suggestion.  This sounds like
> sharing a linux directory on my windows box, backwards of what I am trying
> to do.  I think this issue may be related to the "WebClient" sevice issue.
> I tried disabling "WebClient" on the XP box to no avail.
>
>  Collisions don't seem to be the problem based on the output of ifconfig.
>  # ifconfig eth0
>  eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:10:A4:B7:DC:FD
>            inet addr:192.168.2.102  Bcast:192.168.2.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
>            inet6 addr: fe80::210:a4ff:feb7:dcfd/64 Scope:Link
>            UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>            RX packets:1047087 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>            TX packets:1512872 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>            collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
>            RX bytes:1086175443 (1.0 GiB)  TX bytes:1105329923 (1.0 GiB)
>            Interrupt:11 Base address:0x1000
>
>
>  -Sean
>
>  Jon Taimanglo wrote on 12/21/2006, 3:50 PM:
>
>  checking out my config:
>  [global]
>  ...
>  max xmit = 65535
>  ...
>  socket options = IPTOS_LOWDELAY TCP_NODELAY SO_SNDBUF=65536 SO_RCVBUF=65536
>
>
> On 12/21/06,  Ed T. Toton III <bones at necrobones.net> wrote:
> Thus spake Jon Taimanglo:
>
>  > I also had problems a while back with samba and slow connections which
>  > then timed out (I was recording tv with freevo to a network share - you
>  > guessed it, samba).  Anyways, I ended up tuning the samba server config
>
>  > line.  I can't remember the exact lines (and they may be the defaults
>  > now, if so, please ignore) but they dealt with:
>  >
>  > TCP_NODELAY
>  > IPTOS_LOWDELAY
>  > SO_SNDBUF and SO_RCVBUF
>  > and
>  > MAX XMIT
>  >
>  > I think you can set SNDBUF and RCVBUF to really high values (I'm getting
>  > around 70-80% network utilization from an xp box when I write/read to my
>  > samba share).
>  >
>  > I think I set both SNBUF and RCVBUF to 32768 (or higher, again not
>  > looking at it right now and can't remember exactly) and increased MAX
>  > XMIT.
>  >
>  > I'll look when I get home and send.
>
>
>  These are probably a good place to look since you're using 10BaseT. I used
>  to have massive issues with collisions back when I used to run an NFS
>  server behind a 10BaseT connection, and managed to clear it all up by
>  tuning the block sizes, etc. Presumeably similar results can be had by
>  tuning samba's settings.
>
>  IIRC, 10baseT tends to be more problematic in this are due to being
>  half-duplex. Not all 10Mbit hardware supports full duplex (or supports it
>
>  equally well).
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>  - Ed T. Toton III, RHCE --|-- www.necrobones.com --  ed.toton.org -
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>     "Perl - The only language that looks the same before and after
>      RSA encryption."
>                                    -- Keith Bostic
>
>
>
>