Smb transfers really slow

[Pa1yn]

 

 

I have a server with a 1 core pentium 2.8ghz (don't know the cpu number or model) running linux server 32 bit 16.04 and it's read and writes are slow any solution to fix smb?

[Windows7ge]

A 1 core? You could quite possibly be CPU limited here. Was there a time when the performance was much greater?

[Eigenvektor]

You could use "lscpu" to get a bit more information about the CPU.

 

Try to run "top" while transferring a file to see if it is as @Windows7ge suggested. If it is a CPU limit you should probably see 100% usage. What kind of network card and cable do you have? Might also be a damaged network cable.

[Pa1yn]

1 hour ago, Windows7ge said:

A 1 core? You could quite possibly be CPU limited here. Was there a time when the performance was much greater?

Nope got an old pentium bundle for cheap and built a nas will be upgrading to ryzen eventually so i can run some lan servers

[Pa1yn]

52 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

You could use "lscpu" to get a bit more information about the CPU.

 

Try to run "top" while transferring a file to see if it is as @Windows7ge suggested. If it is a CPU limit you should probably see 100% usage. What kind of network card and cable do you have? Might also be a damaged network cable.

 Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz

Only reaches 5% and i'm using wireless not wired

[Windows7ge]

Just now, GougedKirby522 said:

Nope got an old pentium bundle for cheap and built a nas will be upgrading to ryzen eventually so i can run some lan servers

 Then it's probably a hardware bottleneck. As Eigenvektor said you can install htop and see if the lone CPU core gets pegged hard when you start a file transfer.

 

One thing you could do temporarily that might/maybe alleviate a little bit of the issue would be to set your NIC's MTU to 9000. A.K.A. Jumbo Packets.

[Pa1yn]

1 minute ago, Windows7ge said:

 Then it's probably a hardware bottleneck. As Eigenvektor said you can install htop and see if the lone CPU core gets pegged hard when you start a file transfer.

 

One thing you could do temporarily that might/maybe alleviate a little bit of the issue would be to set your NIC's MTU to 9000. A.K.A. Jumbo Packets.

Lol using a usb wifi dongle so could be that but how would i set its mtu to 9000

[Windows7ge]

2 minutes ago, GougedKirby522 said:

Lol using a usb wifi dongle so could be that but how would i set its mtu to 9000

Wi-Fi on the server or your client? Either would result in some less than adequate results. What do you get with a wired connection?

 

I'd have to know your specific GNU/Linux distribution. It's typically just a matter of appending a line or two to a network configuration file for the network interface then restarting the NIC or the system.

[Pa1yn]

4 minutes ago, Windows7ge said:

Wi-Fi on the server or your client? Either would result in some less than adequate results. What do you get with a wired connection?

 

I'd have to know your specific GNU/Linux distribution. It's typically just a matter of appending a line or two to a network configuration file for the network interface then restarting the NIC or the system.

 Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS 32 bit and what does jumbo packets help lol

[Windows7ge]

1 minute ago, GougedKirby522 said:

 Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS 32 bit and what does jumbo packets help lol

Server or Desktop? Or Server w/ Desktop? It's doable without a desktop it's just a little more work to research which file needs to be edited.

 

In networking there is a MTU or Maximum Transmission Unit that specifies how much of a payload each network packet will carry. The default is typically 1500 but it can be pushed up to 9000 and still be supported by most network equipment. What happens is each 1500 MTU payload has to be "zipped in an envelope" so-to-speak before it gets sent out over the network. This requires CPU time. If we can put more data in a single envelope that's less time we take away from the CPU and in some instances this results in higher throughput.

[Pa1yn]

21 minutes ago, Windows7ge said:

Server or Desktop? Or Server w/ Desktop? It's doable without a desktop it's just a little more work to research which file needs to be edited.

 

In networking there is a MTU or Maximum Transmission Unit that specifies how much of a payload each network packet will carry. The default is typically 1500 but it can be pushed up to 9000 and still be supported by most network equipment. What happens is each 1500 MTU payload has to be "zipped in an envelope" so-to-speak before it gets sent out over the network. This requires CPU time. If we can put more data in a single envelope that's less time we take away from the CPU and in some instances this results in higher throughput.

Server

[Windows7ge]

13 minutes ago, GougedKirby522 said:

Server

I will start looking into it. I'm uncertain if 16.04.X uses netplan or not but the network configuration file might be where I think it is.

[Pa1yn]

36 minutes ago, Windows7ge said:

Server or Desktop? Or Server w/ Desktop? It's doable without a desktop it's just a little more work to research which file needs to be edited.

 

In networking there is a MTU or Maximum Transmission Unit that specifies how much of a payload each network packet will carry. The default is typically 1500 but it can be pushed up to 9000 and still be supported by most network equipment. What happens is each 1500 MTU payload has to be "zipped in an envelope" so-to-speak before it gets sent out over the network. This requires CPU time. If we can put more data in a single envelope that's less time we take away from the CPU and in some instances this results in higher throughput.

 post-up /sbin/ifconfig ra0 mtu 9000

 

added to /etc/network/interfaces

 

Got double write speed to nas

[Windows7ge]

1 hour ago, GougedKirby522 said:

 post-up /sbin/ifconfig ra0 mtu 9000

 

added to /etc/network/interfaces

 

Got double write speed to nas

So it still uses ifconfig. Glad you figured it out on your own.

 

I should have mentioned you also have to enable MTU 9000 on your client machine. I assume you're using a dummy switch that automatically forwards Jumbo Frames.

 

If the performance improved by 100% then a CPU limitation is most definitely part of your bottleneck. What Wi-Fi frequency/802.11 standard are you using? You next bottleneck is likely your Wi-Fi.

[Pa1yn]

1 hour ago, Windows7ge said:

So it still uses ifconfig. Glad you figured it out on your own.

 

I should have mentioned you also have to enable MTU 9000 on your client machine. I assume you're using a dummy switch that automatically forwards Jumbo Frames.

 

If the performance improved by 100% then a CPU limitation is most definitely part of your bottleneck. What Wi-Fi frequency/802.11 standard are you using? You next bottleneck is likely your Wi-Fi.

Well i'm using a usb dongle so theres my bottleneck, i'll be getting a internal nic soon