diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/docbook')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/docbook/projdoc/Other-Clients.sgml | 32 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/docbook/projdoc/Speed.sgml | 170 |
2 files changed, 52 insertions, 150 deletions
diff --git a/docs/docbook/projdoc/Other-Clients.sgml b/docs/docbook/projdoc/Other-Clients.sgml index 6177b4dcb6..73316927e0 100644 --- a/docs/docbook/projdoc/Other-Clients.sgml +++ b/docs/docbook/projdoc/Other-Clients.sgml @@ -168,7 +168,8 @@ packages, Samba, and Linux (and other UNIX-based systems) see <title>Use latest TCP/IP stack from Microsoft</title> <para>Use the latest TCP/IP stack from microsoft if you use Windows -for workgroups.</para> +for workgroups. +</para> <para>The early TCP/IP stacks had lots of bugs.</para> @@ -234,6 +235,24 @@ it may break the print queue reporting on some systems. It is presumably a WfWg bug.</para> </sect2> + +<sect2> +<title>Speed improvement</title> + +<para> +Note that some people have found that setting DefaultRcvWindow in +the [MSTCP] section of the SYSTEM.INI file under WfWg to 3072 gives a +big improvement. I don't know why. +</para> + +<para> +My own experience wth DefaultRcvWindow is that I get much better +performance with a large value (16384 or larger). Other people have +reported that anything over 3072 slows things down enourmously. One +person even reported a speed drop of a factor of 30 when he went from +3072 to 8192. I don't know why. +</para> +</sect2> </sect1> <sect1> @@ -266,6 +285,17 @@ OutLook and you may also notice a significant speedup when accessing network neighborhood services. </para> +<sect2> +<title>Speed improvement</title> + +<para> +Configure the win95 TCPIP registry settings to give better +performance. I use a program called MTUSPEED.exe which I got off the +net. There are various other utilities of this type freely available. +</para> + +</sect2> + </sect1> <sect1> diff --git a/docs/docbook/projdoc/Speed.sgml b/docs/docbook/projdoc/Speed.sgml index 78b5935a9c..753810c1d8 100644 --- a/docs/docbook/projdoc/Speed.sgml +++ b/docs/docbook/projdoc/Speed.sgml @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ line with the -O option, or in the smb.conf file. </para> <para> -The "socket options" section of the smb.conf manual page describes how +The <command>socket options</command> section of the &smb.conf; manual page describes how to set these and gives recommendations. </para> @@ -75,9 +75,9 @@ much. The correct settings are very dependent on your local network. <para> The socket option TCP_NODELAY is the one that seems to make the biggest single difference for most networks. Many people report that -adding "socket options = TCP_NODELAY" doubles the read performance of -a Samba drive. The best explanation I have seen for this is that the -Microsoft TCP/IP stack is slow in sending tcp ACKs. +adding <command>socket options = TCP_NODELAY</command> doubles the read +performance of a Samba drive. The best explanation I have seen for this is +that the Microsoft TCP/IP stack is slow in sending tcp ACKs. </para> </sect1> @@ -86,9 +86,9 @@ Microsoft TCP/IP stack is slow in sending tcp ACKs. <title>Read size</title> <para> -The option "read size" affects the overlap of disk reads/writes with -network reads/writes. If the amount of data being transferred in -several of the SMB commands (currently SMBwrite, SMBwriteX and +The option <command>read size</command> affects the overlap of disk +reads/writes with network reads/writes. If the amount of data being +transferred in several of the SMB commands (currently SMBwrite, SMBwriteX and SMBreadbraw) is larger than this value then the server begins writing the data before it has received the whole packet from the network, or in the case of SMBreadbraw, it begins writing to the network before @@ -114,10 +114,10 @@ pointless and will cause you to allocate memory unnecessarily. <title>Max xmit</title> <para> -At startup the client and server negotiate a "maximum transmit" size, +At startup the client and server negotiate a <command>maximum transmit</command> size, which limits the size of nearly all SMB commands. You can set the -maximum size that Samba will negotiate using the "max xmit = " option -in smb.conf. Note that this is the maximum size of SMB request that +maximum size that Samba will negotiate using the <command>max xmit = </command> option +in &smb.conf;. Note that this is the maximum size of SMB request that Samba will accept, but not the maximum size that the *client* will accept. The client maximum receive size is sent to Samba by the client and Samba honours this limit. @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ In most cases the default is the best option. <title>Log level</title> <para> -If you set the log level (also known as "debug level") higher than 2 +If you set the log level (also known as <command>debug level</command>) higher than 2 then you may suffer a large drop in performance. This is because the server flushes the log file after each operation, which can be very expensive. @@ -150,20 +150,20 @@ expensive. <title>Read raw</title> <para> -The "read raw" operation is designed to be an optimised, low-latency +The <command>read raw</command> operation is designed to be an optimised, low-latency file read operation. A server may choose to not support it, -however. and Samba makes support for "read raw" optional, with it +however. and Samba makes support for <command>read raw</command> optional, with it being enabled by default. </para> <para> -In some cases clients don't handle "read raw" very well and actually +In some cases clients don't handle <command>read raw</command> very well and actually get lower performance using it than they get using the conventional read operations. </para> <para> -So you might like to try "read raw = no" and see what happens on your +So you might like to try <command>read raw = no</command> and see what happens on your network. It might lower, raise or not affect your performance. Only testing can really tell. </para> @@ -174,43 +174,25 @@ testing can really tell. <title>Write raw</title> <para> -The "write raw" operation is designed to be an optimised, low-latency +The <command>write raw</command> operation is designed to be an optimised, low-latency file write operation. A server may choose to not support it, -however. and Samba makes support for "write raw" optional, with it +however. and Samba makes support for <command>write raw</command> optional, with it being enabled by default. </para> <para> -Some machines may find "write raw" slower than normal write, in which +Some machines may find <command>write raw</command> slower than normal write, in which case you may wish to change this option. </para> </sect1> <sect1> -<title>Slow Clients</title> - -<para> -One person has reported that setting the protocol to COREPLUS rather -than LANMAN2 gave a dramatic speed improvement (from 10k/s to 150k/s). -</para> - -<para> -I suspect that his PC's (386sx16 based) were asking for more data than -they could chew. I suspect a similar speed could be had by setting -"read raw = no" and "max xmit = 2048", instead of changing the -protocol. Lowering the "read size" might also help. -</para> - -</sect1> - -<sect1> <title>Slow Logins</title> <para> Slow logins are almost always due to the password checking time. Using -the lowest practical "password level" will improve things a lot. You -could also enable the "UFC crypt" option in the Makefile. +the lowest practical <command>password level</command> will improve things. </para> </sect1> @@ -221,118 +203,8 @@ could also enable the "UFC crypt" option in the Makefile. <para> Often a speed problem can be traced to the client. The client (for example Windows for Workgroups) can often be tuned for better TCP -performance. -</para> - -<para> -See your client docs for details. In particular, I have heard rumours -that the WfWg options TCPWINDOWSIZE and TCPSEGMENTSIZE can have a -large impact on performance. -</para> - -<para> -Also note that some people have found that setting DefaultRcvWindow in -the [MSTCP] section of the SYSTEM.INI file under WfWg to 3072 gives a -big improvement. I don't know why. -</para> - -<para> -My own experience wth DefaultRcvWindow is that I get much better -performance with a large value (16384 or larger). Other people have -reported that anything over 3072 slows things down enourmously. One -person even reported a speed drop of a factor of 30 when he went from -3072 to 8192. I don't know why. -</para> - -<para> -It probably depends a lot on your hardware, and the type of unix box -you have at the other end of the link. -</para> - -<para> -Paul Cochrane has done some testing on client side tuning and come -to the following conclusions: -</para> - -<para> -Install the W2setup.exe file from www.microsoft.com. This is an -update for the winsock stack and utilities which improve performance. -</para> - -<para> -Configure the win95 TCPIP registry settings to give better -perfomance. I use a program called MTUSPEED.exe which I got off the -net. There are various other utilities of this type freely available. -The setting which give the best performance for me are: -</para> - -<orderedlist> -<listitem><para> -MaxMTU Remove -</para></listitem> -<listitem><para> -RWIN Remove -</para></listitem> -<listitem><para> -MTUAutoDiscover Disable -</para></listitem> -<listitem><para> -MTUBlackHoleDetect Disable -</para></listitem> -<listitem><para> -Time To Live Enabled -</para></listitem> -<listitem><para> -Time To Live - HOPS 32 -</para></listitem> -<listitem><para> -NDI Cache Size 0 -</para></listitem> -</orderedlist> - -<para> -I tried virtually all of the items mentioned in the document and -the only one which made a difference to me was the socket options. It -turned out I was better off without any!!!!! -</para> - -<para> -In terms of overall speed of transfer, between various win95 clients -and a DX2-66 20MB server with a crappy NE2000 compatible and old IDE -drive (Kernel 2.0.30). The transfer rate was reasonable for 10 baseT. -</para> - -<para> -<programlisting> -The figures are: Put Get -P166 client 3Com card: 420-440kB/s 500-520kB/s -P100 client 3Com card: 390-410kB/s 490-510kB/s -DX4-75 client NE2000: 370-380kB/s 330-350kB/s -</programlisting> -</para> - -<para> -I based these test on transfer two files a 4.5MB text file and a 15MB -textfile. The results arn't bad considering the hardware Samba is -running on. It's a crap machine!!!! -</para> - -<para> -The updates mentioned in 1 and 2 brought up the transfer rates from -just over 100kB/s in some clients. -</para> - -<para> -A new client is a P333 connected via a 100MB/s card and hub. The -transfer rates from this were good: 450-500kB/s on put and 600+kB/s -on get. -</para> - -<para> -Looking at standard FTP throughput, Samba is a bit slower (100kB/s -upwards). I suppose there is more going on in the samba protocol, but -if it could get up to the rate of FTP the perfomance would be quite -staggering. +performance. Check the sections on the various clients in +<link linkend="Other-Clients">Samba and Other Clients</link>. </para> </sect1> |