heinsohn-wibo Absent Member.
Absent Member.
3410 views

Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

Our enviroment :
OES 11 SP1
Connect via 10Gbit Fibre (direct attached cable to switch)

Clients WINDOWS 7

Connect via 1 Gbit

We se Bad NCP perfomance on the same Volume vs CIFS

While copying a file from the workstation to a volume via NCP we get about ~45 MB/s
While copying a file from the workstation to the same volume via CIFS we get about ~100 MB/s

NCP can be slower but thats a huge difference, any ideas to step further are welcome.

regards
Labels (2)
0 Likes
14 Replies
warper2 Outstanding Contributor.
Outstanding Contributor.

Re: Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

heinsohn-wibo wrote:

>
> Our enviroment :
> OES 11 SP1
> Connect via 10Gbit Fibre (direct attached cable to switch)
>
> Clients WINDOWS 7
>
> Connect via 1 Gbit
>
> We se Bad NCP perfomance on the same Volume vs CIFS
>
> While copying a file from the workstation to a volume via NCP we get
> about ~45 MB/s
> While copying a file from the workstation to the same volume via CIFS
> we get about ~100 MB/s
>
> NCP can be slower but thats a huge difference, any ideas to step further
> are welcome.
>
> regards
>
>


Do you see the same issue when you are copying files from the server? Have
you turned oplocks off?

0 Likes
heinsohn-wibo Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

Hi,

copying from the server to the workstation is nearly the same speed.

Currentyl following settings are active

OPLOCK_SUPPORT_LEVEL = 0
CROSS_PROTOCOL_LOCKS = 1

Regards
0 Likes
Bob-O-Rama
Visitor.

Re: Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

Hi,

Fresh from the random thoughts department:

CIFS allows lying-writes on the server side. So it is not necessarily waiting for the server to actually write the data to disk. Server goes down - so does your writes. Check the Novell Client Settings --> Advanced --> File Commit and see what that is set to. If this is ON, you can see delays in writes, but you are assured the writes actually occured. 😉

Is the server dual homed? If so, ensure the NCP traffic is following the same path as the CIFS traffic. All our servers are dual homed, and the NCP client can some times use a less good path to the server. This is the IP Costing mechanism which was in the XP client and missin in the Windows 7 / Vista client. Its my understanding they are re-introducing this costing mechanism.

If you have anti-virus software which is performing packet inspection, it may be taking a long look at NCP traffic trying to figure out if its an alien invasion. This can slow down things.

-- Bob
0 Likes
Highlighted
heinsohn-wibo Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

Hi Bob,

server is not dual homed
File Commit is off

regarding Antivirus, the tests are made from the same machine, even with antivirus disabled nearly the same result.

My guess is, it must be something differen but what.

regards
0 Likes
Bob-O-Rama
Visitor.

Re: Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

No idea.

I know people have reported performance differences, in my experience its not been substantial. Perhaps we have some super awesome network or something. 😉 Which we do... because "network" is in my job title.

You can get packet traces with Wireshark for both CIFS and NCP and look at the timing. It will tell you if the Client or the Server is causing the difference. e.g. if the client is waiting for ACKs from the server or the other way around. Wireshark may also be useful in determining if caching / lying writes are happening on the Windows side of things.

-- Bob
Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner

Re: Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

On 29.10.2013 21:16, Bob-O-Rama wrote:
>
> No idea.
>
> I know people have reported performance differences, in my experience
> its not been substantial. Perhaps we have some super awesome network
> or something. 😉 Which we do... because "network" is in my job
> title.


Does that mean you see ~ 100MB/sec via NCP on a GB conenction?

CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Novell Knowledge Partner
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Micro Focus Knowledge Partner
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
0 Likes
pwolfe Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

Heres what worked for us.....

Novell Client only update to NC SP3 IR3 - Dont use IR4

Server Settings:
Disable OPLOCKS on NSS & CIF/SAMBA

Workstation Settings:
File Commit (Enabled)
File Cache (Disabled) - NW Client Setting
Name Services – DNS / SLP Only (Default on the newer Netware Client)
Static DNS Server - Set to the internal servers only. No external server set. The win 7 machines for some reason would use the secondary DNS Server randomly instead of the primary, never really dug in on why but disabling / removing a public DNS Server as the secondary and adding in a second internal.
MS Client For Microsoft Networks – Remove, We tried changing the preferred order on the network adapters with no help. I believe the fact that we are running CIFS on the Server side the client is having issues with deciding on how to connect to the NSS Volumes when the client is installed. With the MS Client removed we see a huge improvement In the Novell client.
Uninstall both of the Link Layer TOPOLOGY
Disable IPV6
Uninstall QOS Packet Scheduler
Disable Remote Differential Compression
netsh.exe interface tcp set global autotuning=disabled
netsh.exe interface tcp set global rss=disabled
netsh.exe int ip set global taskoffload=disabled
netsh.exe int tcp set heuristics disabled

Other Additional Options:
Libraries – Disable - Registry - We redirect Documents Folders and such and these libraries are wanting to index the locations. As the Libraries consist of multiple locations.
Offline Files – Disable - Registry
Windows Search – Disable – Registry (Service)
Zone Mapping - Registry Adds the servers & domain to the Trusted list for the OS (Even though it says Internet Explorer its used by other portions of the OS)
User Access Control – Registry
0 Likes
heinsohn-wibo Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

Hi pwolfe,

thanks for your reply, what values (throughput) do get with theses settings ?

regards
0 Likes
Knowledge Partner Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner

Re: Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

mrosen;2291519 wrote:
On 29.10.2013 21:16, Bob-O-Rama wrote:
>
> No idea.
>
> I know people have reported performance differences, in my experience
> its not been substantial. Perhaps we have some super awesome network
> or something. 😉 Which we do... because "network" is in my job
> title.


Does that mean you see ~ 100MB/sec via NCP on a GB conenction?

CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Novell Knowledge Partner
No emails please!
Untitled Document



finally found the time to work a little on this. dedicated boxes (pretty old but decent hardware) on a dedicated LAN, no traffic apart from what i've triggered. the tests are far from real-life operations as it's just about copying a 3GB iso back and forth and doing something similar with "lan speed test lite" (totusoft.com). observations made as follows:

on XP the NCP operations outperform CIFS operations all across the board. i get constant 70MB/s on both reads and writes via NCP, CIFS writes at about 60 and reads 50MB/s (server and workstations rebooted after each test).
on W7 NCP performance is about the same as on XP, CIFS reads are slightly below 70MB/s but CIFS writes constantly at around 105MB/s.

there some pretty confusing things i wonder about:

in the past the FILE_COMMIT setting on the server just decided whether or not to honor client initiated commit requests (did this change?). copying a file with windows explorer never triggers a commit, so neither client nor server settings should be a factor here. in fact, the server setting really has no effect, but running W7 the client setting really makes a difference (though there's no NCP 59 verb leaving the client). the 70MB/s via NCP on W7 could only be reached with FILE_COMMIT being enabled on the client. while i set commit on and oplocks off all of my life anyway i'd be interested how setting commit off could drop transfer rates down to 60MB/s without a commit request on the wire regardless of this setting. obviously there are effects other than requesting a commit on a buffer-flush call made by an application. maybe something alan like to share with us...

what makes the W7 CIFS writes significantly faster? i don't think that caching or lazy writes are a factor here as tests with files larger than server's or workstations' memory lead to identical results, i.e. continuous data flow on the network and a max of 2 seconds I/O on the drives after the copy has finished. no difference on calling "sync" or "fsync" after NCP / CIFS operations. not sure how this integrates with NSS, though.
write caches on harddrives and array controller are disabled, btw.

finally: does anyone have an idea what the FILE_FLUSH parameter in cifs.conf is about? setting it yes or no didn't make a difference for these tests, just being curious.
0 Likes
pwolfe Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

I coppied a single 3GB file off of the NCP / NSS Volume @ an average of 75-85MB/s
I coppied multiple files (20+) adding up to 3GB file off of the NCP / NSS Volume @ an average 65-75MB/s


All of this said Im sure Im bound by other items on the workstation,.

That number is presented using the windows copy modal screen that comes up. I can get you a better accurate number if if you need it....
0 Likes
pwolfe Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

pwolfe;2292868 wrote:
I coppied a single 3GB file off of the NCP / NSS Volume @ an average of 75-85MB/s
I coppied multiple files (20+) adding up to 3GB file off of the NCP / NSS Volume @ an average 65-75MB/s


All of this said Im sure Im bound by other items on the workstation,.

That number is presented using the windows copy modal screen that comes up. I can get you a better accurate number if if you need it....


I get about the same speeds while doing a copy to the file server Give or take ~5-8MB/s
0 Likes
MCCFL_MLA Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

Just an update....after mucho amounts of testing the max average speed is currently about 64MB/s with burst speeds higher that Idle down. I went through a lot of testing (Days). I since have updated to OES 11 SP2, and still see the 64MB/s speeds VIA NCP. (still testing)

Here is what I have found,

NCP Volumes on NSS or standard EXT3 are about the same speed no increase at all. Maybe even a decrease when switched over to Ext3.

CIFS Shared volumes residing on either are at about 105+ MB/s (Server 2008R2 to OES11 SP2 CIFS)

I also tested netcat between 2 OES Servers using anywhere from 1000 1MB files, to multiple 2GB files. With this testing I am able to get the same performance as CIFS.

All of this being seen I would have to say the bottle neck is with NCP....Not sure why its so slow, I would have expected it to be slower, but not that slow.


**Note on the previous posting:

CIFS reads are slightly below 70MB/s but CIFS writes constantly at around 105MB/s.

Could that be the local Drive on the Windows7 client being the limiting factor? Reading from the CIFS Share and writing to the local SATA? as when I run with a computer with a fast Raid I do not see the read limit.
0 Likes
Knowledge Partner Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner

Re: Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

MCCFL_MLA;2316351 wrote:
Just an update....after mucho amounts of testing the max average speed is currently about 64MB/s with burst speeds higher that Idle down. I went through a lot of testing (Days). I since have updated to OES 11 SP2, and still see the 64MB/s speeds VIA NCP. (still testing)

Here is what I have found,

NCP Volumes on NSS or standard EXT3 are about the same speed no increase at all. Maybe even a decrease when switched over to Ext3.

CIFS Shared volumes residing on either are at about 105+ MB/s (Server 2008R2 to OES11 SP2 CIFS)

I also tested netcat between 2 OES Servers using anywhere from 1000 1MB files, to multiple 2GB files. With this testing I am able to get the same performance as CIFS.

All of this being seen I would have to say the bottle neck is with NCP....Not sure why its so slow, I would have expected it to be slower, but not that slow.


**Note on the previous posting:

CIFS reads are slightly below 70MB/s but CIFS writes constantly at around 105MB/s.

Could that be the local Drive on the Windows7 client being the limiting factor? Reading from the CIFS Share and writing to the local SATA? as when I run with a computer with a fast Raid I do not see the read limit.


IIRC the tool i used built up testdata in client's memory, wrote it to the server and read it back afterwards. no disk I/O at all on the client.
0 Likes
Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner

Re: Bad NCP Performance vs CIFS

Hi.

Guys, I tried to tell you.... You can stop wasting your time testing.
Yes, NCP is that much slower *for a single, undisturbed huge file
transfer on a fast link* situation. You will not see transfer rates in
the 100MB/s area on a GB links like you can see on Cifs, and yes, that's
due to the core protocol itself, not it's implementation. To make NCP
more efficient (e.g come closer to the physical wirespeed than it does
currently) changes to the protocol specifications have to be made.

CU,
Massimo

On 08.05.2014 13:56, mathiasbraun wrote:
>
> MCCFL_MLA;2316351 Wrote:
>> Just an update....after mucho amounts of testing the max average speed
>> is currently about 64MB/s with burst speeds higher that Idle down. I
>> went through a lot of testing (Days). I since have updated to OES 11
>> SP2, and still see the 64MB/s speeds VIA NCP. (still testing)
>>
>> Here is what I have found,
>>
>> NCP Volumes on NSS or standard EXT3 are about the same speed no increase
>> at all. Maybe even a decrease when switched over to Ext3.
>>
>> CIFS Shared volumes residing on either are at about 105+ MB/s (Server
>> 2008R2 to OES11 SP2 CIFS)
>>
>> I also tested netcat between 2 OES Servers using anywhere from 1000 1MB
>> files, to multiple 2GB files. With this testing I am able to get the
>> same performance as CIFS.
>>
>> All of this being seen I would have to say the bottle neck is with
>> NCP....Not sure why its so slow, I would have expected it to be slower,
>> but not that slow.
>>
>>
>> **Note on the previous posting:
>>
>> CIFS reads are slightly below 70MB/s but CIFS writes constantly at
>> around 105MB/s.
>>
>> Could that be the local Drive on the Windows7 client being the limiting
>> factor? Reading from the CIFS Share and writing to the local SATA? as
>> when I run with a computer with a fast Raid I do not see the read limit.

>
> IIRC the tool i used built up testdata in client's memory, wrote it to
> the server and read it back afterwards. no disk I/O at all on the
> client.
>
>



--
Massimo Rosen
Novell Knowledge Partner
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Micro Focus Knowledge Partner
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.