Copying using Access

I thought problems copying files between RISC OS computers had been solved, but I just had a problem copying a file from a Raspberry Pi 4 to an ARMX6 by ‘pushing’. that is, doing it on the Raspberry Pi 4 or, equivalently, by sharing the ARMX6 drive. The hour-glass was on interminably, it stiffed the Raspberry Pi 4, Alt Break didn’t work and I could only get back control by Ctrl Break. The file was of size 3MB. I know it is better to ‘pull’ files across than push, but thought pushing a 3MB file would work.

Is Access the same as ShareFS? Actually, I never understood the Logon facility of Access+, and I never used it. But I just pushed 15 MB of files through ShareFS from my 4té to my ARMiniX. No problem at all.

I think the issue is to do with one fast network connection trying to share with a slow one (ARMX6). My ARMX6 has always had issues using ShareFS.

The trick is to use sharefswindow 1 on both machines to limit the issues. There are several threads on here that outline the issue. I certainly set it in my boot sequences to try to ensure that ShareFS works as reliably as possible.

The trick is to use sharefswindow 1 on both machines to limit the issues.

I used to do this on a regular basis some years ago. However, in more recent times, when transferring data from VRPC to my ARMX6, I still got a lot of hang-ups.

It was suggested to me that my Virgin Media Superhub was not observing all the necessary transfer protocols so I bought a TP-Link 8-port switch (not a smart one). With the Windows box and the ARMX6 both plugged into the switch, the results were dramatic. Not only has sharefswindow 1 become a thing of the past but the reliability of transfer is total and the transfer speeds have been vastly improved.

Buying decent quality Ethernet or WiFi kit is very much worthwhile. Anything you get from your ISP is likely to be dire.

@Paul Yes, Access = ShareFS

I have just tried copying the same 3MB file by both pulling and pushing between a Pandaboard and the ARMX6 with no problems.
Next up is to do the same test between the Raspberry Pi 4 and the Pandaboard.

@Paul Yes, Access = ShareFS

And also Freeway.

Why three names? I’ve no idea.

I suspect Access was how the marketing department wanted to describe it. ShareFS is what the programmers used and freeway is a part of the underlying technology. Hopefully an ex-Acornite in the know can give the official stance.

Testing the pulling amd pushing of files between two RISC OS computers, I have some further results with the same 3MB file used.

ARMX6 and Pandaboard: fine
Raspberry Pi 4 and Pandaboard: fine

Raspberry Pi 4 and Titanium: works, but sometimes slow as follows.
Pushing the file from PiAno to Titanium was fine.
The three other ways of copying were all slow with the worst taking 90 seconds when pulling the file from PiAno to Titanium.

There are 6 combinations of 2 computers taken from Titanium, ARMX6, Raspberry Pi 4 and Pandaboard (I do have more!), and so I could do more testing, but it really bores me.

Maybe Chris Hall has some results. Where are you Chris? :-)

Just a quick check, David. Are you using the network port on the Pi 4, or the WIFI HAT?

According to Network Configuration —> Interfaces, the Raspberry Pi 4 is using Motherboard Broadcom GENET.

@John and David Ruck.
The router is a NetgearDGN2200_M (not supplied by the ISP).

The router is a NetgearDGN2200_M (not supplied by the ISP).

Just to highlight something posted earlier – it’s a good idea not to include the ports on a router as part of your LAN. Connecting your local devices together using a switch, and attaching the router to the switch, will generally give better performance, particularly if you use a Gigabit switch. Prices of those have now dropped from astronomical to reasonable.

I use the same router as you, but my LAN uses a D-Link gigabit switch – in fact for geographical reasons, two of them. The only traffic going to/through the router is some DHCP requests, and traffic for the Internet.

Connecting your local devices together using a switch, and attaching the switch to a router, will generally give better performance.

So much better for all sorts of reasons. Has there ever been any other way?

it’s a good idea not to include the ports on a router as part of your LAN

Certainly in the case where a cheap router only has 100M LAN ports, as they assume you’ll only be using it to connect to the internet at ADSL speeds of up to 76Mbps, and not connecting between machines on the local network. My Asus router has gigabit ports and they are every bit as fast as my Netgear gigabit switches.

My Asus router has gigabit ports and they are every bit as fast as my Netgear gigabit switches.

The performance on local transfers really rather depends on whether the router ports are buffered switch ports, unbuffered switch ports, or a hub. That’s taking the possibilities from best down to worst.

@Alan
I tried to find out whether the ports on my NetgearDGN2200_M router are “buffered switch ports, unbuffered switch ports, or a hub” (to quote Steve) from documents downloaded from the Netgear website, but I couldn’t find anything. So I wondered whether Alan knows, since he has the same router.

Just so you know: https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/31617

Just so you know: https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/31617

EoL, no patch. Which is the point at which people might consider looking here

Which is the point at which people might consider looking here

Version 1 – supported but useless (insufficient flash/memory)
Version 2 – completely unsupported
No mention of any other versions.

I get the feeling that Netgear are a “minimum effort” device manufacturer, and this shows up in the security of their devices.

I, myself, have an N300 (actually a WNR2000v5 if you look underneath) which is also “lacking in resources”. I wouldn’t use it as my primary router, however it is great for hanging off of the Livebox in order to provide internet access to anybody who visits. You know, should somebody actually do so. ;)

It has a simple password, only on when I switch it on, and it has a built in DNS block so I can disable any attempts to communicate with any other devices on the LAN (just block 192.168.1.*).
More info at https://heyrick.eu/blog/index.php?diary=20210728 and do note that I refer to it as “a little toy”. That’s about all it is, not something to use in any seriousness. It’s just hanging off the Livebox for guest access.

Anything you get from your ISP is likely to be dire.

Sometimes you don’t have a choice. Orange (France) uses a weird nonstandard implementation of SIP (something to do with the line authorisation) in order to provide the telephone service.
Somebody tried to document how it worked, they rapidly found barking lawyers on their doorstep so gave up.
Thus, you can use pretty much any ADSL router you like on an Orange connection (when I was having problems, I used a WAG200), but if you do you won’t have a phone. And with the growing removal of actual analogue landlines, this means you might end up without any phone, period.

It’s actually bloody annoying really. My Android phone supports SIP, Orange uses SIP, but without knowing the magic sauce to connect the two, I need to use a clunky analogue DECT phone and take the ludicrous route of analogue → digital → analogue → digital (and vice versa).
Orange used to have a Livephone app that did this, but they abandoned it. They also used to have a Livephone that talked to the box digitally, but this is a historic relic that is only sort-of-just-about supported. <shrug>
Anyway, the service provider might make it so you don’t really have a choice other than using whatever rubbish they shovel out the door to their subscribers.

Testing a few more pairs of computers (see my post on 22/12 above) for transfers of files using ShareFS, a summary of what I found is as follows.

Copying files from Titanium to ARMX6 and Raspberry Pi 4, whether ‘pulling’ or ‘pushing’, was bad, failing on 11MB files or even 3MB files. For the Raspberry Pi 4, pressing the Restart button, after transfer stopped, worked often needing several ‘Restarts’.

Copying from Titanium to Pandaboard ES (a CAMRA friend assures me that this means Extra Strong) was surprisingly better, at least to me, with a Restart needed only for pushing an 11MB file.

Copying to the Titanium from these three computers was good with files up to 11MB or 44MB.

Copying between the Raspberry Pi 4 and the ARMX6 was good for files tried up to 44MB, except pushing a 3MB file from the Raspberry Pi 4 to the ARMX6 which caused a freeze (or I was too impatient) which needed a CTRL Break.

Copying a 3MB file between the Pandaboard (Extra Strong) and both the ARMX6 and the Raspberry Pi 4 whether pushing or pulling was fine.

The comparatively humble Pandaboard comes out of these tests very well, although its interface is USB/ethernet; but the other computers didn’t seem to be able to keep up when copying large files from the Titanium.

Explanations, other experiences, or comments appreciated.

Hi David,

I did some testing using a 20mb file and got the following results with a Iyonix/ARMX6 and FOURtress Pi.

ARMX6 to Iyonix
Push 8s
Pull – 5s
ARMX6 to FOURtress
Push – 6s
Pull – 4s
FOURtress to ARMX6
Push – 4s
Pull – 5s

All tested with Ethernet / Powerline adaptors to BT Smart Hub 2.

ShareFSWindow = 2

You do not say if you are using DHCP or Static as in the latter case you may have an IP clash.

ARMX6 – 5.29 03 Nov 20
FOURtress – 19 Dec 21
Iyonix 5.28 19 Oct 20

Hello Doug,

All four computers have (different) static addresses and nothing else on the LAN has any of these addresses. None of the them are using ShareFSWindow command, so perhaps they should. I thought the copying of files using ShareFS was solved in OS updates sometime back, apparently not. The router used is the Netgear DGN2200_M.

I have used the ShareFSWindow command in the past with value 1. Presumably, the Obey file goes in Choices.Boot.Tasks.

I use the following, in my case with “Run at Boot”.
*ShareFSWindow 1 { > null: }