Slow Samba performance on Ubuntu 10.10

[steelsteel!]

I tried editing the Samba file and un-commenting what was mentioned in the above link. This did not fix my problem.

SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
socket options = TCP_NODELAY

Same problem for me. Still existing. Exhausting.

[avpap]

Same problem here, slow transfer speed 3.0 MB/S in gigabit lan. What's wrong?

[snakebob]

Damn it...It's same to me.

I am sure I remeber that samba donwloading transfer speed was around 10Mb/s
in Ubuntu 9.04 and 10.04

But, now it's just around 3Mb/s in Ubuntu 10.10

What happend in Ubuntu team? It's getting more annoying for searching & tunning after new version of Ubuntu install.

Now, Ubuntu version is 10.10............

Anyway, please someone help this...

[snakebob]

Try writing it in one line, ie.

socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192

For me above setting works!!
thanks
I solved this !!!

[qva5]

Damn it...It's same to me.

I am sure I remeber that samba donwloading transfer speed was around 10Mb/s
in Ubuntu 9.04 and 10.04

But, now it's just around 3Mb/s in Ubuntu 10.10

Hi,
I have few questions regarding downloading speed you reported. I would really appreciate if you could give me some more details about it.

On what environment are you using samba? Is it mixture of linux/windows machines? Are transfering data through wireless or wired network?

[ubuking]

I have the same problem. I am using a dual boot 10.10 Meerkat / Windows 7 desktop machine, and copying to my NAS using windows I can reach 50 MB/s while copying the same file under Ubuntu speed only reaches 9MB/s at max. This shows that the problem really is in Ubuntu.
I have updated samba.conf as suggested but this did not do anything (visible) for me. I have added the parameter rsize=130048 and wsize=130048 to my CIFS mount command and that increased speed in Ubuntu to 11MB/s, still disappointing but nontheless slight improvement.

So the /etc/fstab line looks like:
//NAS/Share /home/user/NAS/Share cifs credentials=/root/.smbcredentials,iocharset=utf8,file_mode=0777,dir_ mode=0777,rsize=130048,wsize=130048 0 0

Any other tweaks to increase speed?

[ubuking]

I have not solved the Samba issue yet, and still remain interested in a structural solution.

However, I have installed NFS Server on my NAS, exported the shares in /etc/exports and have mounted the shares in 10.10 using nfs. The speed in copying files between shares and desktop has now increased to some 60 MB/s (on Gigabit LAN), similar to speed on W7, Works for me.

[Qowjgej]

I've run into the same problem. Getting a maximum of 7 megabytes per second using 10.10 64 bit. Tried two different gigabit interfaces using different drivers (forcedeth and r8169) with similar results.

[snakebob]

Hi,
I have few questions regarding downloading speed you reported. I would really appreciate if you could give me some more details about it.

On what environment are you using samba? Is it mixture of linux/windows machines? Are transfering data through wireless or wired network?

I am using samba for Ubuntu file server.
I tested it between Windows7 and Ubuntu in Wired network.

The download speed was data transfering speed from Ubuntu to Windows7 in 100Mpbs wired network with over big files ( over 500Mbyes )

[Qowjgej]

I did some more testing.

First I configured a SBM client on another Ubuntu 10.10 box and tested over a wired network, poor performance was the result, just a few megabytes per second.

Next I configured NFS on a Windows 7 client and mounted a file system from the server over a 300 megabit wireless network. The read performance was even worse than using SMB on the same machine.

Finally I SMB mounted a file system through the loopback interface on the server, Testing this showed good read performance (about 200 megabytes per second) which makes me think the problem is not samba, but likely to be a driver issue of some sort.

A bit of trawling through the internet shows many woeful stories of poor samba read performance and ubuntu going back several years. How representative these are I don't know.

I wonder if this problem is related to specific gigabit chip sets? One wonders how a problem like this could go unobserved and unfixed if it was widespread.