July 23, 2008 01:57pm pdt

1. sanjooz 2,000
1. omarfarid 2,000
3. cedarghost 1,700
4. owenslef... 1,500
5. MrLonandB 1,250
6. PeturIng... 1,000
7. JustUNIX 900
8. steezy 800
9. sjm_ee 600
10. and235100 500
10. archang3l 500
10. ubig 500
10. b0lsc0tt 500
10. mcse2007 500
15. kiolqc 200

1. mzalfres 2,500
2. sanjooz 2,000
2. Jonvee 2,000
2. TeRReF 2,000
2. omarfarid 2,000
2. Mysidia 2,000
7. cedarghost 1,700
8. owenslef... 1,500
8. patrickab 1,500
8. m1tk4 1,500
8. ygoutham 1,500
12. MrLonandB 1,250
13. PeturIng... 1,000
13. natoka 1,000
13. ShineOn 1,000
13. thomaswr... 1,000
13. Liganic 1,000
13. ibu1 1,000
13. uetian1707 1,000
13. BrianGEF... 1,000

06.23.2007 at 07:52PM PDT, ID: 22653712

	[x] Attachment Details

[x]

The Solution Rating System

With so many solutions, how can you tell which solutions are most likely to help you and which ones are not? To provide you with a tool to use, we rate our solutions based on various elements that most accurately determine if a solution is a quality solution. To explain what factors affect the solution rating, here are the elements we take into consideration when formulating our solution rating.

The Grade of the Solution
The Zone Rank of the Expert Providing the Solution
The Number of Author and Expert Comments
The Number of Experts Contributing
The Feedback of the Community

Your Input Matters
Because of the way the system is set up, the most important variable in this equation is you. As a member of Experts Exchange, you are able to cast your vote on the quality of the solutions in regard to how complete, accurate, helpful and easy to understand each solution is. When you provide your feedback, each rating is adjusted accordingly. So, if you see a solution that has a poor rating that you think is a good solution, let us know by rating it. As you do, the rating will be adjusted and will become more accurate for other members of our site.

If you have any suggestions that you would like to make for our rating system, please ask a question in the Suggestions Zone of Community Support.

Thank you!

6.0

Slow file copy problem - Windows - Linux machine

Zones: Samba File Sharing, Linux Networking, Computer CPU Processors

Tags: slow, copy, file, linux, windows

Hi all,

I have 2 machines - a Debian server and a WinXP desktop. The Win box is the more powerful one and has a gigabit network card. The Linux box is relatively old machine, but still works fine except I think it can perform even better. the problem is that when copying large files over the cable I'm getting an average speed of 3Mbytes per second. According to my calculations it should be close to 10 if not more, since the slower network card is a 100 mbit one. I used different protocols - samba, ftp, http with the same results. I also checked the cable and the win machine - no problems there, I can get speeds of 300mbits when using a win laptop.
Also when copying the files I get a CPU load of ~80-85%, so I would imagine if the CPU is the bottleneck I should be able to squeeze some more mbits out of my connection. Any ideas on how to resolve that? Is there a reserved cpu time for the root user? I run smbd as a regular user.

NewWest:~# uname -a
Linux NewWest 2.6.16-1-686 #2 Thu May 4 18:22:23 UTC 2006 i686 GNU/Linux

NewWest:~# lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 82810E DC-133 GMCH [Graphics Memory Controller Hub] (rev 03)
00:01.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 82810E DC-133 CGC [Chipset Graphics Controller] (rev 03)
00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801AA PCI Bridge (rev 02)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82801AA ISA Bridge (LPC) (rev 02)
00:1f.1 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801AA IDE (rev 02)
00:1f.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801AA USB (rev 02)
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 82801AA SMBus (rev 02)
01:07.0 Multimedia audio controller: Ensoniq ES1371 [AudioPCI-97] (rev 06)
01:09.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL-8029(AS)
01:0a.0 Ethernet controller: 3Com Corporation 3c905B 100BaseTX [Cyclone] (rev 24)
NewWest:~#

the 3com card is the one im talking about
I tweaked several tcp settings without any luck so far

Start your free trial to view this solution

Question Stats

Zone: Software

Question Asked By: tlatev

Solution Provided By: HalldorG

Participating Experts: 3

Solution Grade: B

Translate:

Loading Advertisement...

Microsoft

Internet Protocols
Applications

Development
OS

Hardware
Windows Security

Apple

Operating Systems
Hardware

Programming
Networking

Software

Internet

Search Engines
File Sharing
WebTrends / Stats
Spy / Ad Blockers

Web Browsers
New Net Users
Web Development
Chat / IM

Anti Spam
Web Servers
Anti-Virus
Email Clients

Gamers

Tips
Online / MMORPG
Puzzle
Emulators

Action / Adventure
Role Playing
Consoles
Game Programming

Strategy
Sports
Misc
Computer Games

Digital Living

Hardware
Automotive
New Net Users
New Users

Software
Digital Music
Gaming World
Home Security

Apple
Networking Hardware

Virus & Spyware

Vulnerabilities
IDS
Encryption
Anti-Virus

Operating Systems Security
Software Firewalls
WebApplications
Cell Phones

Operating Systems
Internet
Hardware Firewalls

Hardware

Displays / Monitors
Handhelds / PDAs
Components
Peripherals
Laptops/Notebooks

Servers
Misc
Apple
Embedded Hardware
Networking Hardware

Storage
Desktops
New Users

Software

System Utilities
Industry Specific
Network Management
Photos / Graphics
Page Layout
VMware
Misc
Web Development

OS
CYGWIN
Voice Recognition
Virtualization
Message Queue
Quality Assurance
Security
Firewalls

MultiMedia Applications
Development
Database
Office / Productivity
Business Management
OS/2 Apps
Server Software
Internet / Email

ITPro

OS
Storage
Encryption
Operating Systems Security
Apple Hardware
Laptops & Notebooks
Servers
Networking Hardware
Peripherals
Devices

Displays / Monitors
WebTrends / Stats
Search Engines
Firewalls
Web Computing
WebApplications
IDS
Vulnerabilities
Email Clients
File Sharing

Spy / Ad Blockers
Web Browsers
Web Servers
Networking
Anti-Virus
Consulting
Chat / IM
Anti Spam

Developer

Web Servers
Web Browsers
Game Programming
Dev Tools
Industry Specific
Office / Productivity

Database
CYGWIN
Web Development
Search Engines
File Sharing
WebTrends / Stats

Programming
Content Management
Application Servers
Protocols

Storage

Removable Backup Media
Storage Technology
Servers

Grid
Remote Access
Backup / Restore

Misc
Hard Drives

Miscellaneous
Security
Development
Linux
VMware

MainFrame OS
Unix
Apple
OS / 2
AS / 400

BeOS
Microsoft
VMS / OpenVMS

Database

Oracle
Miscellaneous
MySQL
Software
Sybase
Contact Management
PostgreSQL
Data Manipulation
Clarion
InterSystems Cache

Siebel
MUMPS
OLAP
SQLBase
SAS
GIS & GPS
4GL
Berkeley DB
DB2
Informix

Interbase / Firebird
FoxPro
Reporting
LDAP
Filemaker Pro
MS SQL Server
dBase
MS Access

Security

Misc
Web Browsers
Software Firewalls
Operating Systems Security
File Sharing

Spy / Ad Blockers
Vulnerabilities
WebApplications
IDS
Anti-Virus

Encryption
Anti Spam
Email Clients
VPN
Chat / IM

Programming

Editors IDEs
Installation
Handhelds / PDAs
Multimedia Programming
System / Kernel
Automation

Algorithms
Game
Signal Processing
Project Management
Open Source
Database

Misc
Languages
Processor Platforms
Theory

Web Development

Scripting
Blogs
Web Servers
Software
Search Engines
Web Graphics
Web Services

Images
Internet Marketing
Images and Photos
Components
Document Imaging
Web Languages/Standards
Illustration

WebApplications
Fonts
WebTrends / Stats
Authoring
Digital Camera Software
Miscellaneous

Networking

Protocols
Apple Networking
Network Management
Message Queue
Application Servers
Content Management
File Servers
Email Servers
Misc
Java Editors & IDEs

Wireless
Networking Hardware
Backup / Restore
System Utilities
ISPs & Hosting
Web Servers
Storage Technology
Removable Backup Media
Servers
Web Computing

Broadband
Grid
OS / 2
Novell Netware
Unix Networking
Windows Networking
Security
Telecommunications
Operating Systems
Linux Networking

Other

Lounge
Business Travel
Community Support
New Net Users

Philosophy / Religion
Math / Science
Miscellaneous
URLs

Expert Lounge
Politics
Puzzles / Riddles
Automotive

Community Support

Suggestions
New to EE
New Topics
CleanUp

Announcements
General
Feedback

Input
EE Bugs

06.24.2007 at 12:48AM PDT, ID: 19350222

computerfixins:

usaully ftp is the least bloated protocol to use.

You can try jumbo frames to reduce cpu loads, if your nics, router, swtches, etc support it.

In linux world you just edit the ifcfg-eth? and add MTU=9000

not sure on windows side, not a microsqusih guy.

06.24.2007 at 02:10AM PDT, ID: 19350338

HalldorG:

You may test the speed between the machines using a program like iperf it has both a linux and windows version and can be used to messure througput between to machines.

If you are getting much higher speed using iperf then the speedlimit is something in the linux machine
can be not enough memory or to slow disk.
But if the speed is similar with iperf look at replacing the old network card with somthing more modern.

Also check that you are not haveing duplex problems on the network card using
mii-tool or similar to check the status of the ethernet connections.

06.24.2007 at 11:31AM PDT, ID: 19352013

tlatev:

Oops, sorry
I forgot to mention that I did most of the things you recommend
I also tend to think that the problem can be the old 3 com netcard itself

NewWest:~# mii-tool -v
eth0: negotiated 100baseTx-FD, link ok
product info: vendor 00:00:00, model 0 rev 0
basic mode: autonegotiation enabled
basic status: autonegotiation complete, link ok
capabilities: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD
advertising: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD
link partner: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx-HD 10baseT-FD 10baseT-HD flow-control

NewWest:~# ethtool eth0
Settings for eth0:
Supported ports: [ TP MII ]
Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
Supports auto-negotiation: Yes
Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Speed: 100Mb/s
Duplex: Full
Port: MII
PHYAD: 24
Transceiver: internal
Auto-negotiation: on
Current message level: 0x00000001 (1)
Link detected: yes

NewWest:~# ifconfig eth0 mtu 9000
SIOCSIFMTU: Invalid argument

also I have no additional networking hardware - the Lin box has 2 net cards and Im using a crossed over cable to connect them. then the other card is connected to the internet through a modem

I also tried iperf on both machines - the interesting thing is the fact that Im getting even worse results with that - the reported speed was just above 10mbits!

06.24.2007 at 12:21PM PDT, ID: 19352140

HalldorG:

You could check if the realtek card is giving better performance

06.24.2007 at 11:13PM PDT, ID: 19353655

tlatev:

No way - it's a 10mbit one :(
Im using it for the Internet connection only

06.29.2007 at 09:47PM PDT, ID: 19394908

Rank: Wizard

Redimido:

he

snips:
...speed of 3Mbytes per second. According to my calculations it should be close to 10 if not more...
Also when copying the files I get a CPU load of ~80-85%...

I would then think your problem is I/O :-)
your hard disk capabilities can be checked with
hdparm -i /dev/hda

it would be great to have that info here.

also to see resumed how is your disk configured, issue
hdparm /dev/hda

and to check performance (pls put it here)
hdparm -Tt /dev/hda

I think (as you can see) it is your hard drive that cannot handle the troughput, not your lan. however, is usual the IDE hard drives are configured for slow performance. hdparm -i can help us to put the best performance your drive can get ;-)

it this is the cause, it would be more because the IDE interfase on your old server than because of the drive speed, as it have turned out to be on many systems I have reviewed.

06.30.2007 at 10:46PM PDT, ID: 19397947

tlatev:

Sorry, I must have forgotten to post my hd results here, but I did test my drive before
Anyway, here they are:
NewWest:~# hdparm -i /dev/hda

/dev/hda:

Model=Maxtor 6Y120L0, FwRev=YAR41BW0, SerialNo=Y32Q2PGE
Config={ Fixed }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=57
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=2048kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=1
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=240121728
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 *udma4 udma5 udma6
AdvancedPM=yes: disabled (255) WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: ATA/ATAPI-7 T13 1532D revision 0: ATA/ATAPI-1,2,3,4,5,6,7

* signifies the current active mode

NewWest:~# hdparm /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
multcount = 1 (on)
IO_support = 1 (32-bit)
unmaskirq = 0 (off)
using_dma = 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 256 (on)
geometry = 65535/16/63, sectors = 240121728, start = 0

NewWest:~# hdparm -Tt /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing cached reads: 174 MB in 2.01 seconds = 86.72 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 70 MB in 3.05 seconds = 22.94 MB/sec

So if we are to trust those numbers above my server could perform much better.
Any suggestions so far?

06.30.2007 at 10:49PM PDT, ID: 19397951

tlatev:

I forgot to ask that in my previous posting, but Im thinking of an easy way to check if the problem is with the hard drive /which I doubt/
How can I configure a dummy file in the RAM and tell the system to copy it over the network, so I can be sure no hard drive activity is slowing down the process?

07.01.2007 at 03:30AM PDT, ID: 19398395

HalldorG:

As iperf was not giving a better result this is not due to lack of disk performance.

As Iperf does not use disk...

07.01.2007 at 10:08AM PDT, ID: 19399577

tlatev:

NewWest:~# iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 4] local 192.168.1.1 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.11 port 3166
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 11.9 MBytes 9.99 Mbits/sec
[ 4] local 192.168.1.1 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.11 port 3169
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 11.9 MBytes 10.0 Mbits/sec
NewWest:~# iperf -s -u
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on UDP port 5001
Receiving 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 256 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.1.1 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.11 port 3192
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.25 MBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec 0.212 ms 0/ 893 (0%)
NewWest:~# iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------

[1920] local 192.168.1.11 port 3204 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[1920] 0.0-30.0 sec 92.9 MBytes 26.0 Mbits/sec
read failed: Connection reset by peer

Thats the best I could get, which is ~3 mbytes/sec, which is what I achieve copying files

07.01.2007 at 11:53AM PDT, ID: 19399832

HalldorG:

As it is faster in receiving than sending.
Would blame this on CPU or the network card
You will simply not get more performance from the machine than this.
Had an old laptop that did not perform more than about 30 Mbits

Accepted Solution

07.25.2007 at 07:58AM PDT, ID: 19565980

sirbounty:

No comment has been added to this question in more than 21 days, so it is now classified as abandoned.

I will leave the following recommendation for this question in the Cleanup topic area:
Delete - no points refunded

Any objections should be posted here in the next 4 days. After that time, the question will be closed.

~sirbounty
EE Cleanup Volunteer

07.25.2007 at 06:13PM PDT, ID: 19571226

tlatev:

Yep, I ended up replacing the network card with a gigabit one - I'm getting now twice that speed, but still far from the theoretical - turns out the problem is the CPU after all

20080236-EE-VQP-29