Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:39:36 -0300
From:      "Nicolas Gieczewski" <lists.freebsd.org@nixsoftware.com>
To:        <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Samba: Marginal performance & pauses in transfers
Message-ID:  <00f401c3521b$65081910$0200a8c0@ash>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello everybody,

I have a FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE server running Samba 2.2.8a and a =
workstation
running Windows 2000 SP4. Whereas FTP transfers between these boxes =
average
700 KB/s (10 mbps LAN), Samba transfers are never beyond ~120 KB/s.

Trust me, I have tried *everything* I've run into as far as tuning goes, =
but
this is a different problem. The main problem lies in the fact that =
transfers are
not consistent and undergo VERY long, random pauses. My hub's activity =
LED
shows that, during a Samba transfer between these two boxes, no packets
are transferred about 70% of the time. Yep, only during about 30% of the =
total
time a transfer takes there is actual network activity--the remaining =
70% of
the time is taken up by random (both length- and interval-wise) pauses.

All my network cards are propery configured, both media- and duplex- =
wise.
There are nearly no collissions, and the 700 KB/s rate I can achieve in =
FTP
transfers shows that Samba has the problem. I can do SMB transfers =
between
the Windows 2000 box and another Windows 98 box at about 600 KB/s, so =
the
culprit is obviously Samba on the FreeBSD box.

Because most of the time a transfer takes to complete is wasted on those
random pauses, anything I could tune concerning buffer sizes and the =
like is
almost useless because it only takes effect while data is actually being
transferred, not during the pauses. I have fiddled with buffer sizes =
and, by
looking at the hub's activity light, I could (visually and easily) see =
how
more or less data was transferred in between the pauses depending on the
buffer sizes I chose. However, the pauses stayed consistent throughout =
all
my tests. By using larger buffer sizes, all I could do was push more =
data
through in between the pauses, but my tuning never affected the length =
or
interval of the pauses themselves.

Does anyone happen to know what could be causing this problem?

Cheers,

Nicolas Gieczewski
Nix Software Solutions
http://www.nixsoftware.com/



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00f401c3521b$65081910$0200a8c0>