Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 34 of 34

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, Ca, USA
    Posts
    11,282
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Congrats on your persistence and success.

    Do a bit of reading on CIFS vs SMB,
    You'll probably find history that describes CIFS as the first and earliest dialect of the evolving SMB protocol.
    I'm speculating that perhaps as the first dialect that it likely also is the least featured so may also have the least overhead... depending on what those missing features are compared to modern dialects of SMB, your performance may come at a price of security and file integrity.

    https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...tocol-overview

    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!

  2. #32

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tsu2 View Post
    Congrats on your persistence and success.

    Do a bit of reading on CIFS vs SMB,
    You'll probably find history that describes CIFS as the first and earliest dialect of the evolving SMB protocol.
    I'm speculating that perhaps as the first dialect that it likely also is the least featured so may also have the least overhead... depending on what those missing features are compared to modern dialects of SMB, your performance may come at a price of security and file integrity.

    https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...tocol-overview

    TSU
    Thanks! Reading ahead of me...

    So do you mean to indicate that a mount-cifs might be insecure/unsafe as compared to gvfs-smb or kdenetwork-filesharing mounts? File integrity is a hot red alarm for me, with TB‘s worth of hi-res audio and more. I once lost data in a Windows standard copy process to an external hard disk - that‘s why I am paranoid still today and have Total Commander with ”verify“ copying all the time.

    Googling ”Samba Client slow“ plus gvfs-smb opens a can of worms. Lots of reports and bug filings versus gvfs-smb and Samba to this, though I couldn‘t see a real resolution anywhere.

    At least it is quite astonishing that e.g. the Arch Wiki on Samba gives all the various ways for mounting a Windows share, but they don‘t discuss any pros/cons in general, nor do they mention speed in Samba client. The openSUSE Wiki is not exactly helpful either.

    So, reading ..., until I will settle on one of the mount methods at some point in time.

    To all out there: Any recommends regarding the ways to mount a Windows share?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, Ca, USA
    Posts
    11,282
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    OK, wow!
    GVfs!
    That might be a major contributory wrinkle!
    I don't deploy on that but have run across presentations on it that both piqued my interest and left certain impressions on me... So, although I can't be considered an expert on it, there are a number potential issues which need to be checked out.

    First thing I did was skim some general descriptions of GVfs to refresh my understanding (which should still be considered amateurish) and looking for answers to certain questions I have...

    The main thing to understand is that GVfs (which should never be confused with Microsoft's git related GVFS) is extraordinarily featured and flexible supporting numerous scenarios by implementing several virtualization layers and plugins. When I hear that, warning signs pop up for me.

    When talking about virtualized file system layers, immediately I wonder if such can have issues similar to what is possible in common Virtualization technologies like Virtualbox, KVM, VMware, etc when virtual disk files are used... Could there be potential partition alignment and block alignment problems? The idea is that layered file systems must align exactly because if they don't then for every virtual disk block that is accessed, two blocks in the layer below has to be accessed. I wrote about this issue here

    https://forums.opensuse.org/showthre...32#post2667932

    I can not find anything written about GVfs block alignment anywhere so I don't know if it's a real concern or not.

    Besides the physical issue described above,
    the extensive and varied ways that GVfs functions is itself a possible performance issue but not guaranteed to be so. It puts an extremely high premium on being well designed , and being written well. It's the Peter Principle, with simple stuff few things might need to be fixed but highly complex stuff is hard to manage so that everything works perfectly.

    In other words...
    Maybe run a test or two on a non-GVfs file system with the regular SMB protocol to see if it makes a difference.
    And, I see there is probably at least a couple ways to mount SMB-GVfs, try each option.

    Keep in mind that GVfs is relatively new, similar in age to BTRFS. It might be in the midst of a similar early development curve where many things may be tweaked. Mature fs have been around a very long time, for example ext4 itself may be not that old but it's built on top of all the ext that came before which is over multiple decades.

    As for whether CIFS is insecure, I wouldn't necessarily say that's the case, and I'd expect that any concerns would have a CVE. Over the years, SMB evolved to support more features and do things in more ways which may not be critical to what you're doing, so isn't necessarily better or more secure. You can read the history of SMBv1, SMBv2 and SMV3 to evaluate if those are better for your purposes or not. It's the old story of old but simple vs new and complex...

    Speculating,
    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!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    89

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

    Hi,

    When I first connected my NAS I also used Samba since that is what I knew. The transfer speeds, both directions, were slower than I expected and hoped. I then started reading about nfs and started to use that. Speeds are now what they should be for a 1Gbit/s connection.
    I know with Windows you can not use nfs since it doesn't support it, I just wrote this to say it seems samba is slower than nfs. I can't recall my speed differences but I doubt it was as much as you have. Still it was enough to make me look for an alternative. Strange thing you have is that it matters from which PC you send or receive the file. In both cases samba is used so what causes the difference?

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

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
  •