SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?

Summary:

in both blue ring and whitelight versions.

SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?

Calathia 1246654313|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

OK I have both blue ring and whitelight editions. I get really weird SMB performance in WinXP.

Blue ring: SMB 6.2MB/s FTP 9.2MB/s
White ligt: SMB 6.9MB/s FTP 12MB/s

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.

But those SMB transfer rates are a joke. YOU people, who get 33MB/s SMB speed, can you post your configuration?

Why is my SMB speed so slow?

Re: SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?

frater 1246693062|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

FTP is a very efficient protocol and closely tied to TCP/IP.
There is almost no overhead involved…
SMB is a third-party implementation on unix of a Microsoft Networking protocol that wasn't even intended for TCP/IP.

SMB does much more than just transfer a file….
With enough memory and processing power the differences become smaller…

Re: SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?

Calathia 1246696362|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Hi frater.

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.

People are reporting like 33MB/s SMB transfer speeds, how this is possible and with what configuration/system?

I know that CPU/RAM is not the answer, it is definitely something else.

Re: SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?

frater 1246703220|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

I was talking about the CPU/RAM of your worldbook.
I assume you haven't got an 1.8 GHz CPU with 1 GB of RAM in there…..

I was merely pointing out that FTP is always faster than SMB.
There's more overhead with SMB.

Besides that the extra handling needs more processing which gives it even more overhead on a little machine like our worldbook.

last edited on 1246703482|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover by frater + show more

Re: SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?

Calathia 1246714471|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

You misunderstood my point. 6.9MB/s for SMB is laughable slow. There must be solution.

Please users, post your SMB speeds and configurations so we can solve this

Re: SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?

frater 1246716929|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

I didn't misunderstand your point…

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…

You get what you pay for

last edited on 1246717552|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover by frater + show more

Re: SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?

Calathia 1246723816|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

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

so again: Please users, post your SMB speeds and configurations so we can solve this

Re: SMB (WinXP) much slower than ftp! Why?

frater 1246726071|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30764/75/1/2/
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30682/77/