Have you tried using a different switch, or connecting through a hub temporarily to test it?
Also, what NIC are you using and what module are yo loading for that NIC? Also, what are the results if you test your hard drive speed on the Linux box? (As root, run 'hdparm -tT /dev/hda', substitute hda for whatever your hard drive actually is.) Also, how fast can you copy a 10 or 20 MB file on the same system. (without copying over the network). Can use use ftp to transfer the files and see if you get the same results? On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Robert Adkins II wrote: Here are the results of mii-tool from both servers... "Spare" Server: eth0: negotiated 100baseTx-FD, link ok product info: vendor 00:10:18, model 23 rev 7 basic mode: autonegotiation enabled basic status: autonegotiation complete, link ok capabilities: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD advertising: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD flow-control link partner: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD Main Server eth0: negotiated 100baseTx-FD, link ok product info: vendor 00:10:5a, model 0 rev 0 basic mode: autonegotiation enabled basic status: autonegotiation complete, link ok capabilities: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD advertising: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD flow-control link partner: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD If I am reading this correctly, then it appears that they are setup to run at their very best. Using mii-tool, I have tested the "Spare" server by forcing several different speed settings from 100baseTX-FD/HD to 10baseT-FD and HD. I am still experiencing incredible slow downs when copying data to the server and much faster copies from the server. When moving down to the 10baseT speeds the copies to the server slow down a little more, but not by much. They slow down about the same percentage as the copies from the server do when dropping down to 10baseT speeds. (Which is to say it isn't extremely noticeable.) Regards, Robert Adkins II IT Manager/Buyer Impel Industries, Inc. 586-254-5800 -----Original Message----- From: David Brodbeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 11:18 AM To: 'Robert Adkins II' Subject: RE: [Samba] Ext3fs/ReiserFS Performance Enhancing If you're running Linux, mii-tool can be helpful. I've mostly run into this problem with older switches that don't do auto-negotiation properly. Check what the switch is expecting and make sure the ethernet card's settings agree. Sometimes it's best, at least for testing, to force both ends manually into a particular duplex setting instead of relying on auto-negotiation. (If you're using a hub, you should be in half-duplex mode, period.) > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Adkins II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 11:26 AM > To: 'David Brodbeck'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Rashkae' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Samba] Ext3fs/ReiserFS Performance Enhancing > > > Well, > > This suggestion makes perfect sense. I am looking into this, I have > found some interesting information regarding this on Google and hope > to have this figured out soon. > > Thanks for the assistance. > > Regards, > Robert Adkins II > IT Manager/Buyer > Impel Industries, Inc. > 586-254-5800 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Brodbeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 11:09 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Rashkae; Robert Adkins II > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Samba] Ext3fs/ReiserFS Performance Enhancing > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Larry McElderry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 10:45 AM > > To: Rashkae; Robert Adkins II > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [Samba] Ext3fs/ReiserFS Performance Enhancing > > > > > > I tend to agree. Perhaps a duplex mismatch between > > hub/switch and NIC? > > Just to add: A duplex mismatch can cause late collisions that > will *not* > always be reported as errors in the Ethernet stats. A common > symptom is > that pings or small transfers go well, but large ones crawl > or grind to > a > halt. > > -----Original Message----- From: Gareth Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 11:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Rashkae; Robert Adkins II Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Samba] Ext3fs/ReiserFS Performance Enhancing ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry McElderry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Rashkae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Robert Adkins II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:45 PM Subject: RE: [Samba] Ext3fs/ReiserFS Performance Enhancing > I tend to agree. Perhaps a duplex mismatch between hub/switch and NIC? > > How long does it take to copy a 5MB file from one local drive to the second local drive (not involving the network)? > I also concur. I just tested a 16mb file copying to a Winbind authenticated SAMBA share using Ext3fs and it took around 3-4 seconds. Copying between 2 SAMBA shares on the same machine took about 12 seconds. Copying from the share back to the Win2k machine took 4 seconds. Gareth Davies Willowbrook I.T. Ext. 235 ***************************************************************** This email has been checked by the altohiway e-Sweeper Service ***************************************************************** -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba