Windows to Unix File transfer

Also check your network ....

Sometime it just happens that auto negitiation of interfaces doesn't work out. Speed is allways ok, but the Duplex is simetimes mismatched (probabilities of it going good or bad heavily depend on hardware involved, switches interfaces...)

But if there is a mismatch then the transferrate will be low, wheras a ping will reveal nothing.

You have to check for misaligned frames, crc errors, short frames etc.

Both sides of a cable should have the same settings, when in doubt please make the settings fixed in stead of auto.
Also specifying different buffersizes might help (smb.conf).

This isn't an uncommon problem at all... consider inserting a high-speed (10/100, or even better: 10/100/1000) SWITCH between your systems and your router...

Even though we use them as such, even 4-port routers are not DESIGNED to be high-speed switches. And, even though each port may be 10/100, that DOES NOT mean that the internal switch can handle full-throttle speeds on any of those ports. Remember: the intended purpose of a router is to send data from LAN ports to WAN ports, not necessarily to other LAN ports.

I have had this problem with several clients over the years... several popular routers have overall throughput values that make even the cheapest switches seem LIGHTNING FAST by comparison.

I hope this helps...

Dan
IT4SOHO

After considering your opening comment ("I  am a complete muppet wrt networking..."), I thought I'd add a LITTLE bit more to my comment above....

The way you'll want to configure your LAN to follow my suggestion (BTW: a little 5-port Gbit switch is only about $35 (since you seem to like NetGear, try the GS605... $35 at newegg.com w/ free shipping).

Now what you'll do is move ALL of the network cables that go to your router's LAN ports and instead plug them into the new switch. Then, you'll add ONE new cable to connect the switch to the router. In the end, you'll see a data flow path like this:

    Internet <=> Router <=> Switch <=> systems

Since the switch will have a HIGH aggregate throughput capability, you should see MUCH faster file transfer speeds.

Good Luck!

Dan
IT4SOHO

OK Guys, bear with me. I'm going to have a look at everything suggested above. Some of this will take time. be back in a day or so.

Good answers btw ;o)

Good luck.  The review you posted certainly looks like the ticket, but you may not have much luck finding the NFS server for 64 bit.  

It does not look like you get much control over the network settings and samba settings on the A110.

Maybe find someone with a 32 bit XP and try the MS nfs server to test the speed.

OK. I have a partial solution. I bought a gigabit switch and set it up as suggestted. Made no difference at all.
The NFS solution did work and I now have reasonable playback from shares on my PC.

Catch is I also want to be able to transfer files to the hard disk at a reasonable speed, but the NFS client I used (hanewin as per the guidance link I posted) doesnt have any way to do this. Any suggestions as to how I can use NFS for file transfer?

Any tips on why the switch made no difference also appreciated.

Did you also check you cabling as Gigabit Xfers also need Cat5e or better cabling.

NFS is usualy used to mount disks over a network, so there should a mount or and extention to net use that uses NFS or so?

just like you can do net use F: \\machine\share\ for SMB/CIFS
You should be able to do mount machine:/share F:  for NFS
After that you have a disk F: that you can Access....

But you do need write access on the other side... mount with the right owner.
For Windows SFU it is along:   mount -u:username -p:password machine:/share X:

Cabling is all Cat 5.
I have no idea what you're suggesting wrt mounting a disk. Can you give a little more detailed instruction on how to do this on my windows box?  Remember this is NOT my area of expertise.

IP address of the device is 192.168.0.3
disk name for standard smb drive mapping is share on 'SMP8634 Share(Pch-a110)' (Z:)

hanewin looks to be an NFS server only.  You need a NFS client on the XP box to connect to the NFS share on the A110.

Ah. Will start looking

Look here:
http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_Systems/Windows/XP/Q_24318158.html

Windows Services for Unix (SFU for short).

Windows SFU doesnt work on 64 bit. Unfortunately

Dan,
Appreciate the commitment;o) I can follow the process you've outlined so I'll address the parts I can/know how to do. Also one clarification. We're trying to get the data from the Win64 box to Linux - your post was the other way round (unless I've misunderstood)

1. Transfers over the network using SMB (explorer) or FTP (from win 64) to a win xp 32 netbook are quite quick. I'm assuming this rules out speed problems related to the disk/ram/switch on the windows box
2. NFS is quicker than SMB for streaming. I have proven this by setting up the NFS server on both devices and the buffering and fast forward etc are MUCH quicker under NFS. This mirrors the article I included in the initial post. Also found a way to pull files to the PCH over NFS and while it's undoubtedly quicker (5 mins for a 1gb movie rather than 22 via FTP) it's an incredibly painful interface - one file at a time when I have ~600 to go.
3. Bad Ram at either end should be unlikely. windows box has 8GB (why I need XP64), there should be enough good ram in there ;o). Linux device is brand new so this is less likely and more difficult to determine so I'll leave this until last.
4. Disk in the linux box was a 3 month old 2TB disk that I was using in the win64 box with no problems. Device reformatted it to ext3 so shouldnt be any defrag etc problems.
5. One very real possibility is the bad cable one. Both links (Win and linux) to the router are made using DeVolo ethernet over power cable connections. The one to the xp box works fine (it was used in the
test in 1 and internet etc). However the one to the device has not been tested AND it has a power adaptor in the process. (Twits advertising on amazon.CO.UK were selling stuff with German plugs).
Will test this by plugging the linux device into the switch using a direct cat5 cable.

Meantime, any gaps in my logic above or anything I've missed?
Thx
J.

that's doubled the speed of ftp!

Can't test NFS without manhandling the the (37") TV in there (no display on the device) which I am reluctant to do.

Going to test a direct FTP connection (get rid of the other ethernet over power connection) by copying files onto the netbook and plugging it directly into the switch - see what happens.

Meanwhile anyone know where I can find a free/cheap NFS client (not server)? So I can push stuff from win to Linux.
ProNFS and Axe were rubbish (or at least no use to a non networking guru)

Had another thought - dont know if this is possible. Instructions please

I could bring the switch and Linux device out to the main room and connect the two computers directly using the switch. but without the router assigning IP addresses how do I map from one device to the other?

What has doubled the speed of ftp?

Doesn't the ProNFS client have a drive mapping utility?  Map a linux shared folder to a Windows drive letter.

There don't seem to be many 64 bit clients out there.  

You could attach the switch to the router and then both devices to the switch.  Coms between devices will go through the swith and the router will shoot out the DHCP.

removing the devolo ethernet over power cable link to the unix device has doubled the speed of gtp

I guess I could unplug the router from the net. will try this
Thanx Mike

The ProNFS may well have a drive mapping facility, but it wasnt something I could get even close to using. There is config to set up first which didnt make a damn bit of sense to a non-networking person like me. Instructions would be helpful ????

I don't know.  I installed the 32 bit version and I can go to:

Start->Programs->ProNFS v3.0 NFS Client->NFS Map Drive tool

What kind of settings is it looking for?  That 64 bit version is most likely much different from the 32 that I have.  

Beyond that:

Odd issue to have with a new device though.  SMB or FTP should be just as fast on a current device.  NFS V3.0 was RFC'd in 1989.  Why is a 20 year old protocol faster than the others (ftp is a grand-daddy too)?  In my experience transferring files via NFS is just okay when you are getting files and pitifully slow when sending them, more so when it's sending many small files.  Hopefully the disparity between gets and puts won't bite you here once you get the NFS client running.

It was mentioned before that tweaks to the smb.conf file (that you have no access to) might help.  There are also tweaks to the NFS config files that, apparently, are in good shape on that box.  

I think that the device needs to tweak it's settings to get this fixed; you are jumping through hoops to bypass an inherent problem with the embedded linux configuration.