Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
5654 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
Home
Features
News
Forums
Classifieds
Links
Downloads
Extras
OS4 Zone
IRC Network
AmigaWorld Radio
Newsfeed
Top Members
Amiga Dealers
Information
About Us
FAQs
Advertise
Polls
Terms of Service
Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
41 crawler(s) on-line.
 16 guest(s) on-line.
 2 member(s) on-line.


 _ThEcRoW,  Samurai

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 _ThEcRoW:  1 min ago
 Samurai:  1 min ago
 Hypex:  27 mins ago
 ekam:  28 mins ago
 BSzili:  34 mins ago
 Rob:  35 mins ago
 vox:  54 mins ago
 amipal:  1 hr 2 mins ago
 kamelito:  1 hr 37 mins ago
 dreamlandfantasy:  1 hr 41 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga OS4 Software
      /  SMBFS 2.1
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )
PosterThread
olsen 
Re: SMBFS 2.1
Posted on 21-Aug-2019 15:19:50
#21 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Posts: 717
From: Germany

@K-L

Quote:

K-L wrote:
@Olaf

Since some time nom, I can't get speeds higher than 400KB from my server and 500 KB to my server. Way to slow to be usable.

I don't understand why it has suddenly dropped in performance. My Mac Mini G4 with MorphOS has no trouble with SMBFS.


Hi, I'm currently mostly "away from keyboard" on account of having taken two weeks off to simulate a short holiday...

As far as I know the current MorphOS version is based upon my original smbfs port, and it does a few things differently, compared to smbfs 2.1. This accounts for the difference in throughput, as far as I can tell.

The reworked smbfs 2.1 does its best to conform to the SMBv1/CIFS specification, and while there are perks, there are strangely enough drawbacks, too, because smbfs 2.1 now speaks a notably different protocol to the file servers it connects to. Based upon these changes, the servers respond differently, too.

Some servers may actually produce lower data throughput now. This is not a given, though, and some servers now actually produce higher data throughput than before. What you are going to get is hard to predict. The change in throughput is, as far as I can tell, unrelated to how fast your MorphOS/Amiga system is, it seems to be purely related to the protocol which smbfs 2.1 and the file server uses.

Before you ask: simply rolling back the changes made is not really an option since so much has changed in the past two years. Even rolling back one change at a time is questionable

Quote:

I cannot pass arguments to improve anything since when I use more than one of them I get "wrong number of arguments".


The order is important, and some of the options have changed. What exactly are you using that gives you trouble?

Quote:

Is there a new version coming soon ?


I had planned on releasing an update earlier this year, but had to take time off to wrangle other Amiga stuff. The last version I built and released for testing is available for download through the www.a1k.org forum (see https://www.a1k.org/forum/index.php?attachments/188510/).

The current development source code is available at https://github.com/obarthel/amiga-smbfs/tree/development if you want to give it a shot.

Quote:
Is there something to configure ?


I'm afraid there's plenty and not much guidance on which switches to use. The current development version features a total of 48 options, all of which are, um, optional and should not need to be used unless exceptional circumstances and the need to get it to work properly suggest otherwise. There is sufficient variety among the different SMBv1/CIFS server implementations (and in particular the various Samba server versions) that no "standard" smbfs configuration will satisfy every configuration. That's how it goes, I'm afraid

Quote:
Is it possible that using a 1Gbs card could lead to this behaviour only with SMBFS (no problem with FTP, curl, Odyssey or Wget) ?


I would not rule it out that gigabit Ethernet has an impact. During my own tests with Fast Ethernet hardware plugged into the Zorro III bus I found that the higher data throughput wound up choking off both the transmission rate at 20 MBits/s and also producing 100% CPU load at the same time.

Still, I believe the issue is with the changes I made to the protocol which smbfs 2.1 speaks to the file server.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
K-L 
Re: SMBFS 2.1
Posted on 21-Aug-2019 17:14:25
#22 ]
Super Member
Joined: 3-Mar-2006
Posts: 1310
From: Oullins, France

@olsen

Thanks for all your answers.

Quote:
I would not rule it out that gigabit Ethernet has an impact. During my own tests with Fast Ethernet hardware plugged into the Zorro III bus I found that the higher data throughput wound up choking off both the transmission rate at 20 MBits/s and also producing 100% CPU load at the same time.


So I put back an 100Mb/s PCI network card (8139 chipset) and everything is back to normal : I get 100Mbs transfer speeds.

Really weird since with FTP, curl or wget I get nearly 500Mb/s from my 8111 PCi-E network card (8169 driver). Only smbfs has really slow transfers (4Mb/s) with this card (Roadshow bug ? Driver's bug ? smbfs' bug ?)

Anyway, enjoy your small hollidays

_________________
AmigaONE X1000, 2GB, Sapphire Radeon HD 7700
Webmaster of Amiga-NG.org (French)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
olsen 
Re: SMBFS 2.1
Posted on 24-Aug-2019 17:14:30
#23 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Posts: 717
From: Germany

@K-L

Quote:

So I put back an 100Mb/s PCI network card (8139 chipset) and everything is back to normal : I get 100Mbs transfer speeds.

Really weird since with FTP, curl or wget I get nearly 500Mb/s from my 8111 PCi-E network card (8169 driver). Only smbfs has really slow transfers (4Mb/s) with this card (Roadshow bug ? Driver's bug ? smbfs' bug ?)


The ftp and wget commands have the "luxury" of using very little overhead when transmitting/receiving data. The TCP protocol basically does all the heavy lifting. This is not the case with the SMBv1/CIFS protocol which deep down still contains remnants of its shady past, when resources were scarce and TCP/IP was not yet part of the Windows ecosystem (back then SMBv1 would still use raw network packets to get its stuff done).

This is why, for example, SMBv1/CIFS still negotiates how much data both ends of the TCP connection are willing to send/receive at a time. This kind of mechanism is part of the TCP protocol, but SMBv1/CIFS could never shake it.

The SMBv1/CIFS protocol is somewhat "peculiar". There is some interplay with buffer sizes (these are configurable options) and with delays in the local network (also configurable) that can make a difference.

I won't make recommendations because, funny enough, tinkering with these settings doesn't always produce helpful results. Either things improve, or they don't, or they get worse.

The big problem with the SMBv1/CIFS protocol is that there are so many implementations which implement its features ever so slightly differently that no matter what you, you'll have to experiment with the options available.

I cut back on these a bit during smbfs 2.2 development (the current version being 2.22), but try as I might, you can't lose them without actually sacrificing performance tweaks which work for some users.

Quote:

Anyway, enjoy your small hollidays


Trying my very best: I still have one day to go, and then it's back to the office...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle