Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Workgroup LAN via ethernet achieves less than 50% of expected Gigabit speed between two PCs & Samba

  1. #11

    Default Re: Workgroup LAN via ethernet achieves less than 50% of expected Gigabit speed between two PCs

    Thanks guys up to now. Lots of homework for me, but only tomorrow.

    What I can answer right away: Nothing between the two laptops, just a CAT.5E cable. NIC Settings on the Linux side cf. above ethtool output and hwinfo. Nothing else hooked up to either laptop, in particular no router. No internet access during all of this.

    Will be back tomorrow, German time.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, Ca, USA
    Posts
    11,143
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Workgroup LAN via ethernet achieves less than 50% of expected Gigabit speed between two PCs

    Some additional suggestions...

    First,
    You should clarify and define your objectives.
    So, for example there is a big difference between trying to break speed records and transfer a file in the fastest way possible compared to prepping for a real world LAN use with numerous clients running different applications and even browsing the Internet. For the latter, you could justify first trying to do the former to establish a benchmark, but it's unreasonable to think that simply doing the former will set up the latter use.

    Now, some specifics...
    - Try a CAT6 cable
    - Configure full duplex manually on both machines, don't enable auto-negotiate
    - Since you say you get double the speed with a straight file transfer (you didn't say what protocol and application) but your problems are with a SMB file transfer, then that suggests your problems are likely related to your use of the SMB protocol. The SMB protocol does a lot more than simply support a file transfer, numerous features are built into it related to security, discovery, integrity and more things I'm not thinking of. Some descriptions of the protocol follows...

    Note the section on performance issues
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block

    As the protocol used by MSWindows Network Shares, of course its documentation is excellent
    https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...tocol-overview

    And, although you can't really compare your scenario to anyone else' exactly because there are so many critical factors involved, an Internet search might suggest degraded performance you're seeing is not that much different than what others have complained about...

    So,
    In the end you may need to state your parameters and objectives...
    If your LAN hosts will eventually all be gigabit capable, then maybe the settings suggested in my paper can be implemented to improve throughput, but only to a point if you choose to use SMB. If you absolutely need the extra speed (Users often won't notice the difference between 50Mbit vs 110 Mbit unless the files are gigabytes in size), then you might try something else like architecting iSCSI storage and maybe data replication across all the workstations in your network so that needed files have a good chance of being "local" and won't need to be transferred across the network on demand.

    HTH,
    TSU
    Beginner Wiki Quickstart - https://en.opensuse.org/User:Tsu2/Quickstart_Wiki
    Solved a problem recently? Create a wiki page for future personal reference!
    Learn something new?
    Attended a computing event?
    Post and Share!

  3. #13

    Default Re: Workgroup LAN via ethernet achieves less than 50% of expected Gigabit speed between two PCs

    Thanks, malcolmlewis, tsu and nrickert - guess I have the very experts right here to help!

    Let me turn to the various homework items, not in good order, and may omitting quotes the original posts at some points.

    --------------------

    First, continuing on atop and netatop:
    Quote Originally Posted by malcolmlewis View Post
    Hi
    Try the command atop -n to also show what apps are using bandwidth.

    The netatop and netatop kmp (you need to modprobe netatop and start the netatopd service) are in my repo here;

    Project: https://build.opensuse.org/package/s...eneral/netatop
    Download: https://download.opensuse.org/reposi...leweed/x86_64/
    Installed netatop and netatop-kmp-default from your repo, modprobe'd netatop and started the netatopd service - great, it worked.

    This is the output from "sudo atop", then command "n", taken while the Tumbleweed machine was sending a file to a share on the Windows machine:
    Code:
    ATOP - susytmblwdke8570                 2019/09/03  11:31:36                 --------------                  10s elapsed
    PRC |  sys    5.34s |  user   5.21s  |  #proc    262 |  #tslpi   298  | #tslpu     0  |  #zombie    0  | #exit      0  |
    CPU |  sys      52% |  user     50%  |  irq       6% |  idle    693%  | wait      0%  |  ipc     0.48  | curscal  40%  |
    cpu |  sys      18% |  user     21%  |  irq       0% |  idle     61%  | cpu003 w  0%  |  ipc     0.54  | curscal  51%  |
    cpu |  sys       7% |  user      8%  |  irq       0% |  idle     85%  | cpu001 w  0%  |  ipc     0.56  | curscal  36%  |
    cpu |  sys       8% |  user      5%  |  irq       0% |  idle     87%  | cpu000 w  0%  |  ipc     0.38  | curscal  36%  |
    cpu |  sys       2% |  user      2%  |  irq       6% |  idle     90%  | cpu005 w  0%  |  ipc     0.45  | curscal  41%  |
    cpu |  sys       6% |  user      5%  |  irq       0% |  idle     89%  | cpu006 w  0%  |  ipc     0.35  | curscal  46%  |
    cpu |  sys       4% |  user      4%  |  irq       0% |  idle     92%  | cpu004 w  0%  |  ipc     0.50  | curscal  35%  |
    cpu |  sys       3% |  user      3%  |  irq       0% |  idle     94%  | cpu002 w  0%  |  ipc     0.41  | curscal  34%  |
    cpu |  sys       3% |  user      2%  |  irq       0% |  idle     96%  | cpu007 w  0%  |  ipc     0.28  | curscal  37%  |
    CPL |  avg1    0.72 |  avg5    0.32  |  avg15   0.23 |  csw   213263  | intr   52378  |                | numcpu     8  |
    MEM |  tot    15.6G |  free    9.9G  |  cache   4.7G |  buff   77.3M  | slab  358.3M  |  vmbal   0.0M  | hptot   0.0M  |
    SWP |  tot    18.0G |  free   18.0G  |               |                |               |  vmcom   1.9G  | vmlim  25.8G  |
    DSK |           sda |  busy     48%  |  read     965 |  write      4  | MBr/s   48.2  |  MBw/s    0.0  | avio 4.94 ms  |
    NET |  transport    |  tcpi   47106  |  tcpo  355282 |  udpi       4  | udpo       4  |  tcpao      0  | tcppo      0  |
    NET |  network      |  ipi    47113  |  ipo    15453 |  ipfrw      0  | deliv  47112  |  icmpi      2  | icmpo      2  |
    NET |  enp0s25  42% |  pcki   47106  |  pcko  355265 |  sp 1000 Mbps  | si 3156 Kbps  |  so  425 Mbps  | erro       0  |
    NET |  wlo1      0% |  pcki       7  |  pcko       7 |  sp  300 Mbps  | si    0 Kbps  |  so    0 Kbps  | erro       0  |
    
      PID   TID  TCPRCV  TCPRASZ TCPSND  TCPSASZ  UDPRCV UDPRASZ  UDPSND  UDPSASZ    BANDWI     BANDWO   NET CMD         1/2
    10218     -   47089       83  15440    33712       0       0       0        0 3155 Kbps   416 Mbps  100% smb.so
     1252     -       0        0      0        0       4     153       4       78    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% nscd
     2385     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% kwin_x11
     2392     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% plasmashell
     1921     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% X
    10068     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% atop
    10150     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% dolphin
     9460     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% konsole
     1542     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% NetworkManager
     2012     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% upowerd
     1229     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% dbus-daemon
      486     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% haveged
       11     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% rcu_sched
     2287     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% dbus-daemon
      157     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% kworker/4:1-mm
     1032     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% irq/36-iwlwifi
     9962     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% kworker/u16:1-
     2346     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% kded5
     2422     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% org_kde_powerd
     1404     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% polkitd
        1     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% systemd
     1838     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% wpa_supplicant
     2413     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% rtkit-daemon
      158     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% kworker/6:1-ev
      195     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% kworker/u16:7-
      442     -       0        0      0        0       0       0       0        0    0 Kbps     0 Kbps    0% btrfs-cleaner
    I interpret this as seeing the outgoing ethernet speed to be around 50 MiByte/s again, and all ethernet bandwidth being consumed by the smb.so process. Nobody else eats bandwidth. Am I correct?

    --------------------

    Next, let me try to summarize what I would exclude as possible reasons for the apparent loss of more than a factor of 2 in ethernet bandwidth.

    Hardware, physical conditions around my place: I think the ethernet cards on both laptops are capable of Gigabit, as well as the interconnect cable CAT.5E (1.5 meters). No obvious electromagnetic or radio frequency interferences.
    Why that? When both machines are run under Windows (8.1-64 bit), all transfers do run happily at 110-115 MiByte/s (>980 Mbit/s) in any direction.

    And, as already mentioned, there is nothing between the two laptops but this one ethernet cable.

    --------------------

    Third, filesystem types involved:
    Quote Originally Posted by nrickert View Post
    Maybe the problem is because NTFS is slow compared to other file systems.
    On the Linux machine, I use both ext4 and ntfs partitions to read from as well as send to. Of course, on the Windows machine there are only ntfs partitions involved.
    I am getting the same slow speeds of 50 MiByte/s when initiating any transfer from the Linux machine, i.e. using Dolphin (TW KDE) or Thunar (Manjaro Xfce) to push a file to a share on the Windows machine or pull a file from Windows. This slow speed is seen in the same way when using either of the ext4 or ntfs partitions on Linux.

    --------------------

    Fourth, how is the ethernet card set up under Linux and Windows:
    Quote Originally Posted by tsu2 View Post
    Some additional suggestions...

    ...

    Now, some specifics...
    - Try a CAT6 cable
    - Configure full duplex manually on both machines, don't enable auto-negotiate
    - Since you say you get double the speed with a straight file transfer (you didn't say what protocol and application) but your problems are with a SMB file transfer, then that suggests your problems are likely related to your use of the SMB protocol. The SMB protocol does a lot more than simply support a file transfer, numerous features are built into it related to security, discovery, integrity and more things I'm not thinking of. Some descriptions of the protocol follows...

    Note the section on performance issues
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block

    As the protocol used by MSWindows Network Shares, of course its documentation is excellent
    https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...tocol-overview

    And, although you can't really compare your scenario to anyone else' exactly because there are so many critical factors involved, an Internet search might suggest degraded performance you're seeing is not that much different than what others have complained about...

    ...

    HTH,
    TSU
    Cable: cf. above in this post, no issue. Ethernet card setup: On both machines, auto negotiation is enabled, and "ethtool enp0s25" shows 1000Mbps and full duplex, cf. the first post in this thread. At one point in time, I did an incomplete test - disabled auto-neg on the Linux machine and set it to Manual 1000Mbps/full duplex - still only 50 MiByte/s. I will have to do this setting the NICs to Manual properly, on both machines. But I am afraid this would not be successful either.

    --------------------

    Use a different copy method on the Linux machine:
    Until now, I had Dolphin/Krusader and Thunar only.
    Quote Originally Posted by malcolmlewis View Post
    Hi
    Just did some quick tests here, copying an iso image via scp and via Nautilus between two machines with 1Gb interfaces, both ways I see it peaking at around 720Mbps.
    malcolmlewis, I tried scp, but I couldn't get the syntax right, or I am missing something else (SSH?)
    Let's say, I want to scp a file abc.iso from TW to Windows. Open a terminal in the source directory. The Windows machine has computer name win81-pm-8560 on Windows, can be talked to as win81-pm-8560.local using zeroconf (avahi/Bonjour) and can be seen as win81-pm-8560 from Samba. What is the appropriate scp command line then?
    scp abc.iso winusername@win81-pm-8560/winsharename/windirectoryname/
    Couldn't figure it out, too stupid.

    --------------------

    What should we conclude from my iperf3 ethernet performance measurements?
    Cf. one of the posts above:
    Quote Originally Posted by 111MilesToGo View Post
    Next step: Just did an ethernet performance test with iperf3. The Windows machine can send 112 MiB/s to the Linux TW machine. The Linux TW machine achieves send rates of up to 100 or 105 (very rarely) MiB/s, sometimes down to 80 or so. So what does that mean now, and why do I get only 40-50 MiB/s file transfer speed on the TW machine (cf. all the above)?

    Edit: Remember that both machines achieve 110 MiB/s file transfer speeds when run under Windows.
    Does this 800 Mb/s correspond a little bit to your 720Mbps, malcolmlewis? If that were true, would this point to the KDE (Dolphin/Krusader) ways of implementing file transfers from the file managers, and to the Xfce (Thunar) way of implementing its file sharing plugin?
    malcolmlewis, what desktop environment are you using? Tumbleweed with GNOME?

    --------------------

    Anyway, I'll finish for now. Please, give me your comments, suggestions, and please correct as much as possible where I am going wrong.

    I am really wondering with respect to two observations:
    • I have the same loss of a factor of 2 for both Tumbleweed and Manjaro (i.e., Arch-based). However, both do use Network Manager, and I did all setups (Link Local connection, Samba) in roughly the same way, except for different stancas in the global section of /etc/samba/smb.conf (Manjaro by default had a lot more than Tumbleweed).
    • And I am facing more than a factor of 2 loss in ethernet speed, but only when initiating any transfer from the Linux machine to the Windows one - not from Windows to Linux. This factor of >2 is such a big loss that I have a little bit of a hard time to believe that there is a bunch of small losses mounting up. I do more easily tend to believe that there is basically one setting somewhere that's causing things to go downhill.

    --------------------

    It might be very rewarding to discuss your question of "what are your objectives?" with you, tony su. Maybe later, if you agree. This post is getting bigger and bigger ... please bear with me.

  4. #14

    Default Re: Workgroup LAN via ethernet achieves less than 50% of expected Gigabit speed between two PCs

    Quote Originally Posted by malcolmlewis View Post
    Hi
    Try the command atop -n to also show what apps are using bandwidth.

    The netatop and netatop kmp (you need to modprobe netatop and start the netatopd service) are in my repo here;

    Project: https://build.opensuse.org/package/s...eneral/netatop
    Download: https://download.opensuse.org/reposi...leweed/x86_64/
    Hi malcolmlewis, please, I need a bit more help wrt kernel modules. This netatop and netatop-kmp-default was the first one I did "on my own".

    What I did after installing from your repo via YaST was:
    Code:
    $sudo modprobe netatop
    $sudo systemctl start netatopd
    Then
    Code:
    lsmod | sort
    shows netatop to be loaded, and
    Code:
    $sudo atop
    followed by command "n" or
    Code:
    $sudo atop -n
    yield the desired output in terminal.

    Now, three questions please:
    • After a reboot, lsmod shows netatop to be loaded again. From literature I know I could remove it with "rmmod netatop". But where is the config file that calls for netatop to be loaded at boot? Can't find a config file mentioned in various textbooks (TW here, with KDE Plasma).
    • I did not enable netatopd to be started at boot. Nevertheless, after booting "sudo atop -n" gives the "usual" (?) output. Do I have to enable netatopd? Normally, I don't want to flood my system with logs.
    • How about your repository? Does the netatop-kmp-default get updated every time Tumbleweed gets a new kernel? Immediately, or does it require manual action on your side? (Reason to ask: I was really trapped in a big mess a few months ago when I installed TW from a published image that had a messed-up virtualbox-kmp-default not fitting the kernel.)


    Thanks!

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Podunk
    Posts
    26,670
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default Re: Workgroup LAN via ethernet achieves less than 50% of expected Gigabit speed between two PCs

    Quote Originally Posted by 111MilesToGo View Post
    Hi malcolmlewis, please, I need a bit more help wrt kernel modules. This netatop and netatop-kmp-default was the first one I did "on my own".

    What I did after installing from your repo via YaST was:
    Code:
    $sudo modprobe netatop
    $sudo systemctl start netatopd
    Then
    Code:
    lsmod | sort
    shows netatop to be loaded, and
    Code:
    $sudo atop
    followed by command "n" or
    Code:
    $sudo atop -n
    yield the desired output in terminal.

    Now, three questions please:
    • After a reboot, lsmod shows netatop to be loaded again. From literature I know I could remove it with "rmmod netatop". But where is the config file that calls for netatop to be loaded at boot? Can't find a config file mentioned in various textbooks (TW here, with KDE Plasma).
    • I did not enable netatopd to be started at boot. Nevertheless, after booting "sudo atop -n" gives the "usual" (?) output. Do I have to enable netatopd? Normally, I don't want to flood my system with logs.
    • How about your repository? Does the netatop-kmp-default get updated every time Tumbleweed gets a new kernel? Immediately, or does it require manual action on your side? (Reason to ask: I was really trapped in a big mess a few months ago when I installed TW from a published image that had a messed-up virtualbox-kmp-default not fitting the kernel.)


    Thanks!
    Hi
    Likely from atop, is this running in the background?

    The kmp will update automatically on the openSUSE Build Service, after the first kernel update the kmp will/should drop into the kernel module location 'weak-updates' if it's not updated and should keep going until it rebuilds and is available to install. Once you have finished your testing, you can always uninstall...

    If you manually installed, then you would need to keep an eye on the repository after a kernel update.

    For scp/sftp/ssh you would need to be running a ssh daemon on the windows machine else on a windows machine you can use putty or winscp.

    I just use scp <filename> username@host:<filename> will place the file on a linux system in the username home directory.

    My desktop is GNOME...
    Cheers Malcolm °¿° SUSE Knowledge Partner (Linux Counter #276890)
    SUSE SLE, openSUSE Leap/Tumbleweed (x86_64) | GNOME DE
    If you find this post helpful and are logged into the web interface,
    please show your appreciation and click on the star below... Thanks!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, Ca, USA
    Posts
    11,143
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Workgroup LAN via ethernet achieves less than 50% of expected Gigabit speed between two PCs

    For a 1.5m distance, yes I doubt that there would likely be much of a diff between CAT5e and CAT6.

    Unless it's part of your objectives, I wouldn't test using an encrypted protocol like ssh, scp or sftp... I'd just transfer using ftp (my choice) or tftp... If the test transfer files were tiny, <3MB then I would even consider HTTP (but text based protocols like HTTP do worse as the file size increases).

    I also would not be averse to running a packet sniffer or packet capture, then look at the dump looking for any problems in the transmission like failures and re-sends.

    IMO the following from your atop may provide a clue... Depending on what kind of activity your'e testing, that's a lot of traffic going in both directions and might speak to a fundamental inefficiency in the SMB protocol or non-optimized tuning (You'll have to inspect the packets to know what is in the traffic) The heavy traffic in both directions can almost by itself be responsible for halving throughput in one direction
    Code:
      PID   TID  TCPRCV  TCPRASZ TCPSND  TCPSASZ  UDPRCV UDPRASZ  UDPSND  UDPSASZ    BANDWI     BANDWO   NET CMD         1/2
    10218     -   47089       83  15440    33712       0       0       0        0 3155 Kbps   416 Mbps  100% smb.so
    Since your MSWindows test machine is Win8.1, I'd guess you should try to enforce SMB3 in your SAMBA.
    Implement the configuration and mount your share as described in "Tests and Code" in the following
    https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/SMB3-Linux
    And here is a little more info on configuring SMB3 in this "AskUbuntu" thread
    https://askubuntu.com/questions/1009...version-4-3-11

    Else if you don't mount as SMB3, since MS introduced SMB3 in MSWindows 8.1, you should probably run your MSWindows<>MSWindows tests when at least one machine is Win7 or earlier for comparison to a default SAMBA setup.

    IMO,
    TSU
    Beginner Wiki Quickstart - https://en.opensuse.org/User:Tsu2/Quickstart_Wiki
    Solved a problem recently? Create a wiki page for future personal reference!
    Learn something new?
    Attended a computing event?
    Post and Share!

  7. #17

    Default Re: Workgroup LAN via ethernet achieves less than 50% of expected Gigabit speed between two PCs

    Quote Originally Posted by tsu2 View Post
    For a 1.5m distance, yes I doubt that there would likely be much of a diff between CAT5e and CAT6.

    Unless it's part of your objectives, I wouldn't test using an encrypted protocol like ssh, scp or sftp... I'd just transfer using ftp (my choice) or tftp... If the test transfer files were tiny, <3MB then I would even consider HTTP (but text based protocols like HTTP do worse as the file size increases).

    I also would not be averse to running a packet sniffer or packet capture, then look at the dump looking for any problems in the transmission like failures and re-sends.

    IMO the following from your atop may provide a clue... Depending on what kind of activity your'e testing, that's a lot of traffic going in both directions and might speak to a fundamental inefficiency in the SMB protocol or non-optimized tuning (You'll have to inspect the packets to know what is in the traffic) The heavy traffic in both directions can almost by itself be responsible for halving throughput in one direction
    Code:
      PID   TID  TCPRCV  TCPRASZ TCPSND  TCPSASZ  UDPRCV UDPRASZ  UDPSND  UDPSASZ    BANDWI     BANDWO   NET CMD         1/2
    10218     -   47089       83  15440    33712       0       0       0        0 3155 Kbps   416 Mbps  100% smb.so
    Since your MSWindows test machine is Win8.1, I'd guess you should try to enforce SMB3 in your SAMBA.
    Implement the configuration and mount your share as described in "Tests and Code" in the following
    https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/SMB3-Linux
    And here is a little more info on configuring SMB3 in this "AskUbuntu" thread
    https://askubuntu.com/questions/1009...version-4-3-11

    Else if you don't mount as SMB3, since MS introduced SMB3 in MSWindows 8.1, you should probably run your MSWindows<>MSWindows tests when at least one machine is Win7 or earlier for comparison to a default SAMBA setup.

    IMO,
    TSU
    Hi,

    Not sure what heavy traffic means. What I'm doing all the time is copy large iso files (2, 4 or 8 GiB) from here to there. But as you say, without knowing what's inside the packets one doesn't know whether that's the reason.

    I now set "client min protocol = SMB2" and "client max protocol = SMB3" in my /etc/samba/smb.conf. Unfortunately, no change at all. The full Samba doc says that min/max protocol should not be set as the automatic negotiation phase in the SMB protocol takes care of choosing the appropriate one.

    Sorry, I don't quite grasp what you mean in your last paragraph. Do you mean I should mount the Windows shares in my Linux /etc/fstab? Until now I have them in Dolphin/Krusader and also Thunar show up in the file managers' side panels under network and/or under places. Will try mounting via fstab tomorrow, when I can figure out the most appropriate mount statement. Plus, I would need to understand the mechanics in the cases (1) Windows machine not present at boot of Linux and (2) either one of the Linux or Windows machines coming up later.

    Cheers.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Podunk
    Posts
    26,670
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default Re: Workgroup LAN via ethernet achieves less than 50% of expected Gigabit speed between two PCs

    Hi
    If you have access to a Cat6 cable, I would try that to see if there is an improvement. As for WinX tools, I would suggest a third party tool to verify the observations from the winX default tools.
    Cheers Malcolm °¿° SUSE Knowledge Partner (Linux Counter #276890)
    SUSE SLE, openSUSE Leap/Tumbleweed (x86_64) | GNOME DE
    If you find this post helpful and are logged into the web interface,
    please show your appreciation and click on the star below... Thanks!

  9. #19

    Default Re: Workgroup LAN via ethernet achieves less than 50% of expected Gigabit speed between two PCs

    Hi Tony, if I am reading the atop -n outputs right (your red markings, with average packet sizes and the 10 sec interval), then there is a Send rate of 52 MiB/s and a Receive rate of 390kiB/s. The Send rate is just what I see all the time, cannot judge on the Receive rate.

    Hi Malcolm, no easy access to a Cat6 cable, but I‘ll try, although Win<>Win runs at 980 MBits/s with 5E.

    Cheers!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, Ca, USA
    Posts
    11,143
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Workgroup LAN via ethernet achieves less than 50% of expected Gigabit speed between two PCs

    Quote Originally Posted by 111MilesToGo View Post
    Hi Tony, if I am reading the atop -n outputs right (your red markings, with average packet sizes and the 10 sec interval), then there is a Send rate of 52 MiB/s and a Receive rate of 390kiB/s. The Send rate is just what I see all the time, cannot judge on the Receive rate.

    Hi Malcolm, no easy access to a Cat6 cable, but I‘ll try, although Win<>Win runs at 980 MBits/s with 5E.

    Cheers!
    The red numbers are numbers of packets (I assume).
    That's an extraordinary amount of traffic going in the opposite direction no matter which way the file is being transferred, and because Ethernet is fundamentally a serial connection (only one packet can exist on the wire at any given moment and machines communicate that way) it has to affect how fast the file can be transferred.

    The next step should be to determine if that traffic is normal SMB overhead or if it's due to dropped packets which is fairly unlikely on a very short, direct, unshared link. Until you actually inspect those packets, everything is speculation but to me this is a promising path of exploration.

    Also, I'd try forcing SMB3 by setting that as the minimum also before backing off to allowing SMB2, at least for testing. You're trying to configure an apples to apples comparison with your 2 MSWindows transfer test.

    Regarding getting a CAT6 cable, I doubt that should make much difference on such a short distance.
    And besides, if the test between two MSWindows machines was over the existing cable, then at least in that test it made no diff.

    TSU
    Beginner Wiki Quickstart - https://en.opensuse.org/User:Tsu2/Quickstart_Wiki
    Solved a problem recently? Create a wiki page for future personal reference!
    Learn something new?
    Attended a computing event?
    Post and Share!

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •