On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:13:45PM +0100, Diego Zuccato wrote:
> Volker Lendecke wrote:
>
>>> smbclient pulling data from WinXP => ~4MB/s
>>> 2xsmbclient pulling data from WinXP => ~8MB/s
>>> 3xsmbclient pulling data from WinXP => ~11MB/s
>> Which smbclient version?
> Last time I tested I was using
Volker Lendecke wrote:
smbclient pulling data from WinXP => ~4MB/s
2xsmbclient pulling data from WinXP => ~8MB/s
3xsmbclient pulling data from WinXP => ~11MB/s
Which smbclient version?
Last time I tested I was using 2.4.2. I'll try again with 2.4.3 ASAP.
--
Diego Zuccato
Servizi Informatici
D
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:06:28AM +0100, Diego Zuccato wrote:
> >Am I correct in saying:
> >
> >smbclient -> smbd maxes the wire.
> >smbclient -> WinXP maxes the wire.
> Not in my case. I noticed that
> smbclient pulling data from WinXP => ~4MB/s
> 2xsmbclient pulling data from WinXP => ~8MB/s
> 3
Jeremy Allison wrote:
Am I correct in saying:
smbclient -> smbd maxes the wire.
smbclient -> WinXP maxes the wire.
Not in my case. I noticed that
smbclient pulling data from WinXP => ~4MB/s
2xsmbclient pulling data from WinXP => ~8MB/s
3xsmbclient pulling data from WinXP => ~11MB/s
--
Diego Z
This is not the whole truth. With smbclient command line tool I have
the same exact problem (max 3,8MB/s).
b.
On 9 February 2010 17:19, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 10:25:44AM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 01:19:40AM +0100, Bostjan Skufca wrote:
>>
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 10:25:44AM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 01:19:40AM +0100, Bostjan Skufca wrote:
> > Then I am greedier (if I also strive for 11MB/s:) Thanks for reminding
> > me though.
> >
> > Can/Did someone push it over 10MB/s (or 100MB/s with 1Gbps ethernet)
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 01:19:40AM +0100, Bostjan Skufca wrote:
> Then I am greedier (if I also strive for 11MB/s:) Thanks for reminding
> me though.
>
> Can/Did someone push it over 10MB/s (or 100MB/s with 1Gbps ethernet))?
>
>
> To Jeremy or someone who is involved in samba as a developer: do
Then I am greedier (if I also strive for 11MB/s:) Thanks for reminding
me though.
Can/Did someone push it over 10MB/s (or 100MB/s with 1Gbps ethernet))?
To Jeremy or someone who is involved in samba as a developer: do any
particular kernel options influence performance of smbclient, that you
kno
Bostjan Skufca put forth on 2/8/2010 4:07 PM:
> Thanks!
>
> "We have a bidder at 7,5 MB/s, do I hear more? Do we have 8 MB/s?" :)
8.5MB/s here from both (an old) smbclient and Winders 2K/XP. But, of course,
you already knew that from my previous posts. Just getting it into this thread
for your
Thanks!
"We have a bidder at 7,5 MB/s, do I hear more? Do we have 8 MB/s?" :)
b.
On 8 February 2010 21:27, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 08:53:11PM +0100, Bostjan Skufca wrote:
>> Ok, a quick questions for everyone:
>>
>> Can you max a 100Mbps ethernet connection to SMBD s
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 08:53:11PM +0100, Bostjan Skufca wrote:
> Ok, a quick questions for everyone:
>
> Can you max a 100Mbps ethernet connection to SMBD server using
> smbclient or mount.cifs?
>
> What transfer speeds can you reach? 8MB/s, 10MB/s, 11,5MB/s?
>
> Thanks everybody,
> b.
>
> PS:
Ok, a quick questions for everyone:
Can you max a 100Mbps ethernet connection to SMBD server using
smbclient or mount.cifs?
What transfer speeds can you reach? 8MB/s, 10MB/s, 11,5MB/s?
Thanks everybody,
b.
PS: Because if you can and I can't, that means only I have a client
side problem.
On 7
My case is slightly different. Only 2 combinations are interesting
when compared:
1. WinXXX client ---> smbd(max)
2. smbclient---> smbd(1/3)
The first combo maxes the wire with only 1 client connected, in any
direction (GET/PUT).
The second, however, seems to work at 1/3 of wire sp
Jeremy Allison put forth on 2/6/2010 11:07 PM:
> On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 09:26:32PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Bostjan Skufca put forth on 2/6/2010 6:14 PM:
>>> Hello everybody!
>>>
>>> This is probably going to be a classic question but I cannot find a
>>> decent answer on net.
>>>
>>> I have
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 09:26:32PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Bostjan Skufca put forth on 2/6/2010 6:14 PM:
> > Hello everybody!
> >
> > This is probably going to be a classic question but I cannot find a
> > decent answer on net.
> >
> > I have samba server set up and the following things wor
Yes, I've forgot to mention that I can also get link saturated with
single Win client, therefore it does not appear to be a server issue.
BTW: Slack, samba compiled from scratch (v3.4.5) and custom vanilla
kernel (but nothing fancy or unusual).
b.
PS: The funny thing is, as I recall, I did previ
Bostjan Skufca put forth on 2/6/2010 6:14 PM:
> Hello everybody!
>
> This is probably going to be a classic question but I cannot find a
> decent answer on net.
>
> I have samba server set up and the following things work flawlessly:
> - iperf shows 92% link utilization
> - FTP/SCP/HTTP transfers
Hello everybody!
This is probably going to be a classic question but I cannot find a
decent answer on net.
I have samba server set up and the following things work flawlessly:
- iperf shows 92% link utilization
- FTP/SCP/HTTP transfers work in 10MB/s range.
However, when I mount samba share with
18 matches
Mail list logo
