Hello Masters,

I just built a Ubuntu based server, and I want to use it as a home network backup, storage server. I can get on the server from other computers, but transfering files takes a good deal of time. Is there anything you can think of that would cause slow transfer?

I have 3:
1TB drives SATA
2.6Ghz Dual Core
6GB RAM

thoughts?

When you say:

transfering files takes a good deal of time

What does "a good deal of time" is ?
For which file size ?

What is your network?
Wifi, 100Mb Ethernet, 1Gb Ethernet?
What protocol do you use to transfer files, samba, nfs, ftp ?

All of this have an impact.
To give you an estimate, I use an old Pentium dual 2 Ghz with 4 Gb ram and 5 SATA2 1To hdd with stripping in my NAS, over an wired 1Gb lan Ethernet network.
The tested throughput of the NAS is:

hdparm -tT /dev/sde
/dev/sde:
Timing cached reads: 1482 MB in 2.00 seconds = 740.63 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 294 MB in 3.01 seconds = 97.72 MB/sec

Using Linux to Linux, via nfs, I achieve ~30Mo/s throughput with peaks around 50 Mo/s.
Using windows to Linux, via samba, I am around 12~15 Mo/s throughput with peak around 20Mo/s.

With my eeePc, over wifi G (54Mb/s), in the same room, I achieve ~2.5 Mo/s from windows to Linux over samba.

It probably has more to do with your home network than with your server setup. What kind of router are you using?

Hey Guys,

Thanks for the responses. Here is a little more information on my project. I have a Several computers at home. But for this project, I'm working with a Windows 7 Machine and a Ubuntu Server.

What I would like to do is be able to transfer files from my Windows 7 machine to my Linux Server with the use of my 10/100 Hub.

Can anyone go over how to setup a system like this?

You where talking about slow transfer speed first.
Is your lan setup already or not ?
There is no magical trick, you may already be at the peak of the capacity of your network setup.

Given what you says in the previous post, those points come to my mind:
First, this means you will use samba, and you will get around 60% of the maximum available throughput.
Second, you are using a hub, which means that when several machines transfer a big file at the same time, you risk collision on the network (nothing to worry about),
As a collision mean a retransmission of the tcp packet, it will slow down your transfers.
Third, a 100Mb/s network means a throughput of approximately 10 Mo/s (100Mbits / 8bits = 12.5 Mo/s when nothing interfers with the transmission)

I may even add a fourth: the network card.
When I was playing with my gigabit network setup, I saw a huge difference between a low cost Gb network card and an intel Gb card.
I was barely half the throughput of the intel card with the low cost card.
So, even that should be taken in account. But, for a 100Mb/s network, the technology is now so old and mastered that it should not be relevant.
Beside, I suppose that you are using the mother board integrated network adapters, which are generally not so bad today.

So again, what is your measured throughput on your network?
You may think they are slow, but given the limits of your network, how slow?

Here is a bit more information:

My Windows 7 machine is hooked up to my "home network" with a wireless connection. What I want to do is bypass the wireless connection, and transfer files from my Windows 7 machine to my Linux Server without using the slower speeds of the wireless network. I assume that is where the HUB comes in. I want to create a "Room network" where I have just the two machines connected though the hub.

I need some help on how to physically plug all of the connections in, in a way to get the best speed transferring files between computers.

Well, simply plug your wired network cards from both PC to the Hub, and assign each PC an IP address in the same range.

For example, for the server:
IP: 192.168.10.1
netmask: 255.255.255.0

For the 1st PC:
IP: 192.168.10.10
netmask: 255.255.255.0

For the second PC:
IP: 192.168.10.15
netmask: 255.255.255.0

Or, you could configure a DHCP server on your ubuntu box.
I don't know about ubuntu, I use gentoo, but I used this config file for my dhcpcd setup:

#auto-update DNS with new leases
key "rndc-key" {
        algorithm hmac-md5;
        secret "my_rndc_secret_key";
};

zone whatever.com{
  primary 192.168.50.254;
  key rndc-key;
}

get-lease-hostnames           true;

authoritative;
ddns-update-style interim;
ddns-domainname "whatever.com";
allow client-updates;
option oe-key code 159 = string;
option oe-gateway code 160 = ip-address;
on commit {
  if (not static and((config-option server.ddns-updates = null) or(config-option server.ddns-updates != 0))) {
    if exists oe-key {
      set ddns-rev-name =
      concat (binary-to-ascii (10, 8, ".",
      reverse (1, leased-address)), ".",
      pick (config-option server.ddns-rev-domainname,
      "in-addr.arpa."));
      set full-oe-key = option oe-key;
      switch (ns-update (delete (IN, 25, ddns-rev-name, null),add (IN, 25, ddns-rev-name, full-oe-key,lease-time / 2))){
        default:
          unset ddns-rev-name;
        break;
        case NOERROR:
          on release or expiry {
            switch (ns-update (delete (IN, 25, ddns-rev-name, null))) {
              case NOERROR:
                unset ddns-rev-name;
              break;
            }
          }
      }
    }
  }
}

#Wired network 
  subnet 192.168.50.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
      range 192.168.50.100 192.168.50.250;
      option broadcast-address 192.168.50.255;
      option routers 192.168.50.254;
      option domain-name-servers 192.168.50.254;

      default-lease-time 259200;
      max-lease-time 518400;
      update-static-leases on;
      option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;
      option domain-name "whatever.com";

      #dev box, should get a fixed IP via DHCP
      host devMainIF{
        hardware ethernet 00:23:54:f5:81:7a;
        fixed-address 192.168.50.5;
        option host-name = "devp4";
      }

  }

I assume that you have already shared a directory on your server, as you used it via wireless.

Now, for the last part, if you want to use your wired connection rather than your wifi connection, then desactivate your wifi.
I have to do so on my eeePc, otherwise each file copy are going through the wireless.
I don't know how to define, in windows, that a given interface should be used over another.
I assume it has something to do with the routing table. Maybe the metric value...
But a simple "fn+f2" is enough for me, both to deactivate the wifi and spare the battery, so I never looked further than that.

If you want to go further, I encourage you to look at the how-to of the gentoo site.
They cover a wide range of linux server case, from the simplest "home" setup to complex enterprise grade cases.
The how-to can be found there: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/?catid=sysadmin
This how-to apply closely to your case: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/home-router-howto.xml

Hey Tripy,

I'm finally back and with some news. So I have my windows machine (192.168.1.78), as well as my linux box (192.168.1.74). I have installed apache to the linux box and now it acts as a webserver. I am transfering files through it like an ftp server. Is there a more practical way?

Reason I ask is because I'm getting anywhere from 2000KB/s to 10,000KB/s and I wanted to know if its because of Apache or my setup?

I am transfering files through it like an ftp server. Is there a more practical way?

Yes, of course there is.
Look for "samba" on your linux server.
It allows your linux installation to integrate a windows network.

I'm getting anywhere from 2000KB/s to 10,000KB/s and I wanted to know if its because of Apache or my setup?

It's definitively your network setup. If it was apache, you would have results with a much smaller difference.
But read my previous posts, and you'll see that given what you say, you probably cannot get more than 10'000 Kbytes/s.
It's almost the maximum a 100Mbit/s can give you: 100 * 1024 / 8= 12'800 Kbyte/s

What kind of equipment would provide better results, I have a lot of networking stuff laying around. Is there something better than a 10/100?

Also, thanks for all of your help so far. Would not be able to do this without you. The reason speeds are important is because I need to transfer many Gb's at a time.

Is there something better than a 10/100?

For the last 10 years, yeah; it's called gigabyte ethernet.

But if I was you, to minimize costs, I would do:
First, ditch the hub, and use a switch.
Second, use shielded cat6 network cables

If it's still not enough, then switch to gigabyte.
But read me previous posts.
I run a gigabyte network, and top transfer speed is around 30Mo/seconds on linux to linux.
In a window to linux setup, I reach 12 to 15 Mo/seconds top.
http://www.webmaster-talk.com/websit...tml#post998633

gigabit network cards and a router/switch/hub with gigabit LAN ports.


But enabling samba will give a better performance than FTP transfers do anyway

But enabling samba will give a better performance than FTP transfers do anyway

My tests shoved differently.
The latency in FTP is the negotiation prior to the transfer, but the transfer itself can saturate my network.

Samba would never saturate my network.
My guess is that the samba implementation is too generic, and maybe playing with tcp settings can get it faster, but I am not inclined to take that much time for just this.

I did my test over the Gb network with winxp on 1 end and linux as the server.
I installed the "services for unix" on the xp computer, and tested the transfer using the same set of files (mainly ISO images and DVD dump) via both samba, ftp and nfs.

Nfs was clearly the winner, closely followed by ftp (small numbers of files, and big size is better with ftp than a lot of small files) and around 30% slower was samba.

Nfs was clearly the winner, closely followed by ftp (small numbers of files, and big size is better with ftp than a lot of small files) and around 30% slower was samba.

Now that's interesting, as it's not something I've ever tested myself, so another grain of knowledge is added to the shoreline.

Looks like I'm not the only one to come to that conclusion:
http://www.javvin.com/NFSdoc/nfsperformance.html

After many tests, Dr. Jack Fegreus concluded that for Gigabit Ethernet server-to-server file I/O traffic between UNIX/Linux servers and Windows Server 2003, the performance choice is to put NFS on Windows rather than utilize CIFS (SAMBA).

NFS throughput averaged about 48MB per second versus 25MB per second with Samba.

Some new things I've obtained:
- 1000 Feet of Category 6
- 24 Port Gigabit Ethernet Switch
- Crimpers / Punch Tools / Tools Etc
- Misc Cat6 Jacks and Wall Plates
- 100's of RJ45 Connectors

So, with all of this stuff, I'm running the cat6 through the attic and installing jacks in the rooms that need to transfer. I've installled samba on my linux box, and I will be testing the speeds when I get done installing everything.

Originally Posted by MattGoucher

Some new things I've obtained:
- 1000 Feet of Category 6
- 24 Port Gigabit Ethernet Switch
- Crimpers / Punch Tools / Tools Etc
- Misc Cat6 Jacks and Wall Plates
- 100's of RJ45 Connectors

Originally Posted by MattGoucher

So, with all of this stuff, I'm running the cat6 through the attic and installing jacks in the rooms that need to transfer.

That's a dedication to the goal!
I would not have thought you would go that far so quickly.
I'm waiting for your results.

Haha yea. I'm really trying to learn a lot about networking, because its quite fascinating. My local Frys store was charging way to much for some of the stuff. So I went to amazon instead. I should get all my stuff tomorrow. Gotta love next day shipping.

(Double Post Sorry).

I do have a couple questions about the Cat6. I know that its a fairly new technology. What are the differences, and can CAT6 be used with CAT5 cable etc. Are there compatibilities?

You can use CAT5 cable with CAT6 fittings BUT your network may NOT run at full speed.
CAT6 cable is designed to minimise the capacitive effects (impedance) at the higher frequencies the cable needs to works at.
If your cables runs are quite short ~20m at maximum this shouldn't be too much of a problem though. You WILL need to take care with the twists at the cable ends when fitting the jacks as well to keep the NEXT (Near End Crosstalk) down.

A couple of references for you.
http://www.belden.com/pdfs/Techpprs/ciocahalf.htm
http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html

BTW
This thread is bringing back memories of laying miles and miles of structured cabling then fitting and testing ends, dressing cables in racks etc etc
Boy am I glad I don't do that anymore