Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/27/2010 4:37 PM:
> Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/25/2010 5:30 PM:
>> Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/25/2010 1:28 AM:
>
>>> The dual-stream one is kindof limited help. The interesting
>>> piece is how Win->Win does its thing faster, so we need to
>>> see that one.
>>
>>
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/25/2010 5:30 PM:
> Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/25/2010 1:28 AM:
>> The dual-stream one is kindof limited help. The interesting
>> piece is how Win->Win does its thing faster, so we need to
>> see that one.
>
> I've been busting my but trying to get you something me
Hi
2010/1/26 Linda Walsh :
> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>
>> For raw bandwidth maximization, what port and protocol are used won't
>> make much difference, if any. In fact it shouldn't make _any_
>> difference in raw b/w. Communications between the Samba server and
>> Win2K client appear to be exclus
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
For raw bandwidth maximization, what port and protocol are used won't
make much difference, if any. In fact it shouldn't make _any_
difference in raw b/w. Communications between the Samba server and
Win2K client appear to be exclusively over TCP 139 at this point
according
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/25/2010 1:28 AM:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:14:36AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 6:51 AM:
>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
Except that he said "I can copy files between the Win2K and WinX
2010/1/25 Stan Hoeppner :
[...]
> This is rather interesting, and disheartening. I've just spent 30 minutes
> playing with tshark and windump. For small file transfers, the presence of
> the
> capture tools running cuts the network interface performance in half. If I
> copy
> a 600MB file, the
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/25/2010 12:07 PM:
> Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/25/2010 1:28 AM:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:14:36AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 6:51 AM:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
> Except that
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/25/2010 1:28 AM:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:14:36AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 6:51 AM:
>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
Except that he said "I can copy files between the Win2K and WinX
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:14:36AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 6:51 AM:
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
> >> Except that he said "I can copy files between the Win2K and WinXP
> >> machines at just over 10MB/s in a single str
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 6:51 AM:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
>> Except that he said "I can copy files between the Win2K and WinXP
>> machines at just over 10MB/s in a single stream and max out the 11MB/s
>> with two streams." I am assuming he used
2010/1/24 Stan Hoeppner :
> Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 6:51 AM:
>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
>>> Except that he said "I can copy files between the Win2K and WinXP
>>> machines at just over 10MB/s in a single stream and max out the 11MB/s
>>> with two
2010/1/24 Stan Hoeppner :
> Michael Wood put forth on 1/24/2010 6:09 AM:
[...]
>> Except that he said "I can copy files between the Win2K and WinXP
>> machines at just over 10MB/s in a single stream and max out the 11MB/s
>> with two streams." I am assuming he used the same client in that test
>>
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 6:51 AM:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
>> Except that he said "I can copy files between the Win2K and WinXP
>> machines at just over 10MB/s in a single stream and max out the 11MB/s
>> with two streams." I am assuming he used
Michael Wood put forth on 1/24/2010 6:09 AM:
> 2010/1/24 Volker Lendecke :
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 02:11:04PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> The 11MB/s was a different test, which I clearly stated.
>>> It consisted of two concurrent single stream file copies
>>> _from_ the Samba server _to_ a W
Volker Lendecke put forth on 1/24/2010 5:04 AM:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 02:11:04PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> The 11MB/s was a different test, which I clearly stated.
>> It consisted of two concurrent single stream file copies
>> _from_ the Samba server _to_ a Win2K workstation using
>> stand
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
> Except that he said "I can copy files between the Win2K and WinXP
> machines at just over 10MB/s in a single stream and max out the 11MB/s
> with two streams." I am assuming he used the same client in that test
> as he did with the te
2010/1/24 Volker Lendecke :
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 02:11:04PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> The 11MB/s was a different test, which I clearly stated.
>> It consisted of two concurrent single stream file copies
>> _from_ the Samba server _to_ a Win2K workstation using
>> standard Windows Explorer
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 02:11:04PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> The 11MB/s was a different test, which I clearly stated.
> It consisted of two concurrent single stream file copies
> _from_ the Samba server _to_ a Win2K workstation using
> standard Windows Explorer as the file copy program. This
>
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/23/2010 2:11 PM:
> Absolutely not. Both interfaces (Samba server and Win2K workstation) are
> configured and confirmed to be operating in full duplex mode. I confirmed
> this
> by forcing the Win2k box to 100FDX. This broke the switch which wants full
> autonegotia
Learner Study put forth on 1/23/2010 3:31 AM:
> Hi Linda:
>
> Looking at some internet resources, it appears that both encryption
> and packet signing are off by default. Can u pls let me know how to
> disable these on samba server side (on 3.0.x)
Pretty sure they are both off in my case. I did
Hi Linda:
Looking at some internet resources, it appears that both encryption
and packet signing are off by default. Can u pls let me know how to
disable these on samba server side (on 3.0.x)
Thanks.
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Igor wrote:
>>
>> I don't find it stran
Igor wrote:
I don't find it strange at all. Your computer is acting as a traffic
proxy between two samba servers. If you have 100Mb network interface
your bandwidth should split exactly in two.
But he said he doesn't get a split in two when a win2k server
is used (he gets 11Mbps).I
Igor put forth on 1/21/2010 6:04 PM:
> Hello Stan,
Hello Igor,
> I don't find it strange at all. Your computer is acting as a traffic
> proxy between two samba servers. If you have 100Mb network interface
> your bandwidth should split exactly in two.
Which should be 5.5MB/s instead of 4MB/s f
Hello Stan,
Friday, January 22, 2010, 2:26:41 AM, you wrote:
Check it out, I found it with google:
http://oreilly.com/catalog/samba/chapter/book/appb.pdf
You see "out of the box" there is about 20% difference between SMB and
FTP performance which corresponds with your experience.
SH> Hello
Hello Stan,
Friday, January 22, 2010, 2:26:41 AM, you wrote:
I don't find it strange at all. Your computer is acting as a traffic
proxy between two samba servers. If you have 100Mb network interface
your bandwidth should split exactly in two.
FTP is a different protocol. You might find the a
Hello fellow Samba users and devs. This is my first post. I've searched
documentation far and wide for Windows, Linux, and Samba, and have not been able
to shed any light on this issue.
I can't get more than 8MB/s during a single file copy stream out of my Samba
server over my 100FDX switched ne
26 matches
Mail list logo