<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wikidot="http://www.wikidot.com/rss-namespace">

	<channel>
		<title>SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?</title>
		<link>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929/smb-winxp-much-slower-than-ftp-why</link>
		<description>Posts in the discussion thread &quot;SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?&quot; - in both blue ring and whitelight versions.</description>
				<copyright></copyright>
		<lastBuildDate></lastBuildDate>
		
					<item>
				<guid>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929#post-525929</guid>
				<title>Re: SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?</title>
				<link>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929/smb-winxp-much-slower-than-ftp-why#post-525929</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:47:51 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>frater</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>139187</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p><a href="http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30764/75/1/2/">http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30764/75/1/2/</a><br /> <a href="http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30682/77/">http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30682/77/</a></p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929#post-525915</guid>
				<title>Re: SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?</title>
				<link>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929/smb-winxp-much-slower-than-ftp-why#post-525915</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:10:16 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>Calathia</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>85068</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>frater, please don't reply to this post anymore, its pointless. Others have SMB transfer speed of 24-33MB/s so mine shold be the same since I have the same damn HD</p> <p>so again: Please users, post your SMB speeds and configurations so we can solve this</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929#post-525851</guid>
				<title>Re: SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?</title>
				<link>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929/smb-winxp-much-slower-than-ftp-why#post-525851</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>frater</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>139187</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>I didn't misunderstand your point…</p> <p>SMB is processor intensive and because DMA is not used for its HD transfers, the HD transfer is processor intensive as well. Samba makes your hd-access slower…</p> <p>You get what you pay for</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929#post-525822</guid>
				<title>Re: SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?</title>
				<link>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929/smb-winxp-much-slower-than-ftp-why#post-525822</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:34:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>Calathia</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>85068</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>You misunderstood my point. 6.9MB/s for SMB is laughable slow. There must be solution.</p> <p>Please users, post your SMB speeds and configurations so we can solve this</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929#post-525767</guid>
				<title>Re: SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?</title>
				<link>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929/smb-winxp-much-slower-than-ftp-why#post-525767</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>frater</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>139187</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>I was talking about the CPU/RAM of your worldbook.<br /> I assume you haven't got an 1.8&nbsp;GHz CPU with 1&nbsp;GB of RAM in there…..</p> <p>I was merely pointing out that FTP is always faster than SMB.<br /> There's more overhead with SMB.</p> <p>Besides that the extra handling needs more processing which gives it even more overhead on a little machine like our worldbook.</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929#post-525716</guid>
				<title>Re: SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?</title>
				<link>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929/smb-winxp-much-slower-than-ftp-why#post-525716</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:32:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>Calathia</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>85068</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>Hi frater.</p> <p>CPU and memory can't be the bottleneck nowadays; I have 1.8GHz cpu and 1gig of RAM. Cpu is practically sleeping during SMB transfer.</p> <p>People are reporting like 33MB/s SMB transfer speeds, how this is possible and with what configuration/system?</p> <p>I know that CPU/RAM is not the answer, it is definitely something else.</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929#post-525694</guid>
				<title>Re: SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?</title>
				<link>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929/smb-winxp-much-slower-than-ftp-why#post-525694</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:37:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>frater</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>139187</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>FTP is a very efficient protocol and closely tied to TCP/IP.<br /> There is almost no overhead involved…<br /> SMB is a third-party implementation on unix of a Microsoft Networking protocol that wasn't even intended for TCP/IP.</p> <p>SMB does much more than just transfer a file….<br /> With enough memory and processing power the differences become smaller…</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929#post-525419</guid>
				<title>SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?</title>
				<link>http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/forum/t-166929/smb-winxp-much-slower-than-ftp-why#post-525419</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:51:53 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>Calathia</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>85068</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>OK I have both blue ring and whitelight editions. I get really weird SMB performance in WinXP.</p> <p>Blue ring: SMB 6.2MB/s FTP 9.2MB/s<br /> White ligt: SMB 6.9MB/s FTP 12MB/s</p> <p>I have 100M ethernet router Buffalo Airstation WHR-G54S. I understand that blue ring ftp speed can't be better because of its CPU and white lights FTP speed can't be better because I only have 100M LAN.</p> <p>But those SMB transfer rates are a joke. YOU people, who get 33MB/s SMB speed, can you post your configuration?</p> <p>Why is my SMB speed so slow?</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
				</channel>
</rss>