Subject: Extremely slow printing from Mac to Linux/netatlk

From: "Stephen Lubbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 11:55:35 -0600

Hi Folks,
Anybody have any ideas as to why printing is so slow using netatalk? It currently takes ~5 minutes to print a page of text from simpltext. I have an HP 5MP attached to my RH6.2 box. I glommed the PPD from the MAC and performed the appropriate end-of-line conversions. In the papd config I have piped the netatlk print output into lpr. It makes no diference whether I use a Q that has a PS filter or if I use a Q that is raw (no filter). THe Mac is running either MacOS 8.5 or 8.6.
In watching the spooled file appear in the lpd directory, it appears that the Mac is sending the data to the Linux box veeery slowly. Once the file has been received it is printed correctly.
Any Ideas as to why the data xfer between the mac and netatlk is so slow? Is DDP really that slow? File xfers, which use appletalk over TCP as a transport, are very fast.
I'm at work now so I can't provide config details but if they would be useful I will be glad to post them later when I get home.

Regards,
Steve

---

From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 14:14:08 -0400

> Stephen Lubbs wrote:
> Any Ideas as to why the data xfer between the mac and netatlk is so
> slow? Is DDP really that slow? File xfers, which use appletalk over
> TCP as a transport, are very fast.
> I'm at work now so I can't provide config details but if they would be
> useful I will be glad to post them later when I get home.

	It's not DDP, itself (although throwing around 20mb PS files over 10mb
using AT is a bit nasty) - The PAPD subsystem appears to be rather, um,
how do I say this without offending diligent minds..... Gross, I guess.
Rather gross. I've looked at it a bit, and it's quite crazy- Makes my
eyes bug out. 
	I love typing the word "Hi" in simpletext on a Mac, and Notepad on a
Windows box, print to the same printer (Netatalk for the Mac, and Samba
for the Windows box) and watch the Windows job print, and then 2-4
minutes later see the mac job-- Helps me convince people to buy more
Intel machines. :-D

-- 

 Matthew Keller
 WebMaster & Lead Programmer/Analyst
 Distributed Computing/Telemedia
 Information Services Division
 State University of New York at Potsdam
 
 Website: http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/
 PGP: http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/crypto/
 Webcam:  http://webcam.mattwork.potsdam.edu:85/

---

From: andrew morgan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:41:37 -0700 (PDT)

> minutes later see the mac job-- Helps me convince people to buy more

Yeah, papd is slower than samba, but I don't see anything as slow as you
guys are talking about...  A "print desktop" command takes about 30
seconds from when you click print to when it starts printing.  Maybe there
is something else wrong?

	Andy

---

From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:34:28 -0400

> seconds from when you click print to when it starts printing.  Maybe there

	I have several different clients running Netatalk, not to mention
several of our school's servers - And I can replicated this problem with
a myriad of versions and configurations. My "IF" script in printcap
doesn't even SEE the print job for quite a bit after the job is
"sent"... 

-- 

 Matthew Keller

---

From: Andras Kadinger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 05:20:15 +0200

> > useful I will be glad to post them later when I get home.

Stephen, older versions of papd indeed were tending to unnecessarily
take up a lot of CPU time and thus slow down printing, among others in
the case of PostScript streams containing considerable amount of binary
data.

> Rather gross. I've looked at it a bit, and it's quite crazy- Makes my

Matthew, please reassure us that you are looking at a relatively recent
papd. Do you?

Could you please be constructively critical, and tell us what bugs you,
what would you like to see changed in papd?

Thanks in advance,

Regards,
Andras Kadinger

---

From: Stephen Lubbs <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:26:09 -0400

Hi Holks,
Well this sure generated a lot of comments! What I get from all this is
that there are others who have seen the problem but that no one can say
with certainty what the cause is or how to solve it. Based on the input
here and my own experience I'm leaning toward the atalk/ppd stack being
the culprit. It is worth noting that printing from the Mac directly to
the printer is very fast, as is samba printing and linux native
printing.

Thank you all for your inputs. If I learn anything of interest I will
post it here for all to see.

Regards,
Steve Lubbs

Stephen Lubbs wrote:

> Hi Folks,Anybody have any ideas as to why printing is so slow using
> netatalk? It currently takes ~5 minutes to print a page of text from
> simpltext. I have an HP 5MP attached to my RH6.2 box. I glommed the
> PPD from the MAC and performed the appropriate end-of-line
> conversions. In the papd config I have piped the netatlk print output
> into lpr. It makes no diference whether I use a Q that has a PS filter
> or if I use a Q that is raw (no filter). THe Mac is running either
> MacOS 8.5 or 8.6.
> In watching the spooled file appear in the lpd directory, it appears
> that the Mac is sending the data to the Linux box veeery slowly. Once
> the file has been received it is printed correctly.
> useful I will be glad to post them later when I get home. Regards,
> Steve

--
//
// Stephen Lubbs
// [email-masked]
// "An Equal Opportunity Developer"
// "Supporting Java, CTOS, Linux, Unix, Mac OS, NT, and OS/2"
//