samba much slower than ssh and behaving weird??

I've a very strange network-problem here:

I connect two linux-machines via a wlan with samba. The connection is a
54MBit-Wlan, so I should get at least 20MBit in real.

When transfering a big file (500MB compressed data) with samba I get
only about 8Mbit (measured with iptraf).
Transfering the very same file with scp I get the 23MBit, which is what
I expected.

And now the real strange stuff: When I have two big files in the same
directory and start two copy-processes to transfer both via samba to the
other machine I get 15MBit. This should be slower than when copying only
one file.

What is my problem?

The disks are fast enough, which is shown when transfering with scp and
especially when torturing the disk by copying to files from the same
folder to the same folder simultanously.

The connection is fast enough.

samba is a good thing. I use it for years. I never encountered a laps
like this.


Both systems run OpenSuse10.0 with samba 3.0.20b and there were no other
net- or sysconsuming processes running on either machine when I did my
tests.

thnx,
peter

In comp.os.linux.networking peter pilsl <(E-Mail Removed)>:

> I've a very strange network-problem here:

> I connect two linux-machines via a wlan with samba. The connection is a

Is there any special reason to use samba? Why not use NFS, the
natural way to mount filesystem through the network for unix?

There's probably a nfs howto (www.tldp.org) to get you going.

Good luck

[ transfer speed problems ]

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo (E-Mail Removed) | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 364: Sand fleas eating the Internet cables

>
> Is there any special reason to use samba? Why not use NFS, the
> natural way to mount filesystem through the network for unix?
>

I usually work in heterogenic networks. Windows and sometimes even Macs
should be able to access the files too. For windows the server should
even be able to act as PDC (for non-win-people: Public Domain Controller
- kind of a windows authentication master that rulez a network).

So samba is my choice.

thnx,
peter

In comp.os.linux.networking peter pilsl <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>
>> Is there any special reason to use samba? Why not use NFS, the
>> natural way to mount filesystem through the network for unix?
>>

> I usually work in heterogenic networks. Windows and sometimes even Macs
> should be able to access the files too. For windows the server should
> even be able to act as PDC (for non-win-people: Public Domain Controller
> - kind of a windows authentication master that rulez a network).

Thx, however I'm well aware about PDC/BDC, just that I don't use
it on my desktop doesn't mean there wouldn't been heterogeneous
networks around me.

> So samba is my choice.

You can export the same dir via NFS and via samba. Don't get much
more then 2 MB/sec transfered via 54MBit wlan using scp. But it's
still pretty much for tunneling http through ssh, so didn't
bother to put work into speeding things up.

Did you checked for (growing) problems/errors with
ifconfig/netstat?

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo (E-Mail Removed) | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 154: You can tune a file system, but you can't
tune a fish (from most tunefs man pages)

peter pilsl wrote:
> I've a very strange network-problem here:
>
> And now the real strange stuff: When I have two big files in the same
> directory and start two copy-processes to transfer both via samba to the
> other machine I get 15MBit. This should be slower than when copying only
> one file.
>
> What is my problem?
>

Try an smaller MTU. If suddenly things start working as espected then
is probably a random WiFi problem.
(You can use traceroute -n "destinationHost" "packetLenght" to catch
the problem origin.)

Hope this help!

Enrique

http://www.heraldodeinternet.com/Mem...arizon_benito/