I have two CIFS shares, going to two ZFS datasets. Clients access these over wifi, so if I copy from one to another I get rather slow ~7MB/s copying (NAS-(wifi)->Client-(wifi)->NAS I assume). If I copy from the shell on the server I get ~90MB/s. Is there any fancy way to get files copying from a windows client, between the shares faster?
-
Important Announcement for the TrueNAS Community.
The TrueNAS Community has now been moved. This forum will now become READ-ONLY for historical purposes. Please feel free to join us on the new TrueNAS Community Forums
Copying between shares via CIFS from windows
- Thread starter gtrrmsd
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 20,194
SMB 3.something supports server-side copy, but I'm not sure if Samba has implemented that yet. Clients would have to be Windows 8.1 or newer.
It should also be possible to do so via the CLI, but I'm unsure about how this affects permissions.
Ok thanks, I don't have a windows 8 to test with, but might set one up to see if it works.
From this site; https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Server-Side_Copy it looks like robocopy might do it under windows 7(?) But just testing robocopy here and is still copying over the network.
From this site; https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Server-Side_Copy it looks like robocopy might do it under windows 7(?) But just testing robocopy here and is still copying over the network.
SweetAndLow
Sweet'NASty
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Messages
- 6,421
umm... your using wifi, you shouldn't be expecting speeds any faster than that.
Yes over Wifi I am maxing out my connection on large files. Read the link above about (now I know what it's called) server-side copy, I'm trying to copy the files without them going over the wifi at all, but from a wifi connected client, and easily for non-tech users ( no shell commands :D )
Yes, Robocopy does work, when copying a file to the same share (windows 7), very fast, basically 0% wifi usage. But not between the two CIFS shares unfortunately. Maybe with a symbolic link, I can get it to work? But it's 4:30am here, so not today :D
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 9,554
Symlinks can't point to a location outside of the share where they're located. It's a security thing.
You can use cp -Rp from the CLI. The "R" is recursive, and the "p" preserves mtime, atime, acls, etc. I'm not sure if it will preserve xattrs, but those usually aren't important.
Alternatively, you can via the CLI use mount_smbfs and perform the copy locally via CIFS. :)
Last edited:
SweetAndLow
Sweet'NASty
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Messages
- 6,421
If samba supports wide links you can make a symlink outside of a share. You would have to modify the smb.conf which isn't the best solution either.
SweetAndLow
Sweet'NASty
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Messages
- 6,421
Also I just tested server side copy with my windows8.1 client and FreeNAS 9.2.1.8 running max protocol version smb2_24 and it works. I did a transfer of 5GB and saw speeds around 200MB/s(not possible over gigE). I also saw zero network traffic occurring on my windows box which I observed in the task manager. This was all done within a single share, I don't have two shares in a single dataset so i can't test the across share scenario.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 9,554
The "wide links" parameter only works if you've disabled "unix extensions". Overall, it requires mucking around with auxiliary parameters and is annoying.
Server-side copy only works on the same share. It's an SMB2 command, but Windows 7 / Server 2008 clients can do it via robocopy only. Windows 8 / Server 2012 can do it via Explorer or robocopy.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 9,554
True, it's possible to reach a point where it would have been faster to just connect a cat6 cable and just copy the dang files than trying to figure out how to do it server-side. :)
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 20,194
The reason I keep a 30m roll of Cat. 6 cable lying around. Disaster planning for when my desktop needs to be recovered from backup.
Now that I think about it, the other day I realized Windows 7's Image Backup restore tool doesn't seem to allow restoring over the network, unlike WHS 2011's restore tool...
Server side can be faster than 1Gb LAN, but regardless, if hard wired worked better in all situations, wifi would not exist! :D
This is not a one off thing. These files may be copied regularly, otherwise I would just do it on the server shell.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 9,554
WiFi exists for convenience, not for performance or reliability. :)
Exactly. In this case, the convenience of no wires, while also copying large files at as-fast-as-the-disks-can-go speed :D
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 9,554
You must have some slow disks. Pretty much the only way I could do that would be using 10 gigabit. Fact of life in a world increasingly using ssd - gigabit Ethernet is the bottleneck. It's also amazing how many random network issues (applications misbehaving, unexpected slowdowns, etc) I've seen people trace back to WiFi. Don't get me wrong - it's fine for every day use (internet, streaming music and movies, even moving some really big files). Bulk movement of large datasets? Give me a long CAT6 cable. That and wired scales more easily than wireless.
- Status
