Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Debian NSLU2 NFS to Vista

Expand Messages
  • Sam
    Vista (ultimate) has an NFS client that can be easily installed I thought it may be worth trying this over samba, to save some impact (memory, cpu time) etc
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 23, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Vista (ultimate) has an NFS client that can be easily installed

      I thought it may be worth trying this over samba, to save some impact
      (memory, cpu time) etc etc on my NSLU2

      File copying speeds arent too bad from vista (writing) - 3-4 MB/s...

      Just browsing and opening menu's is really slow


      As a test, i mounted the drive on a debian vmware pc on my vista box,
      used time to time the copy of an ubuntu ISO (695 Mb) from the nslu2
      which i had put there in a couple of minutes from my vista desktop.
      It took 2m.0.107s to copy the 695MB back to the vmware pc.

      So thats about (695/2/60) 5.97 MB/s read - http://www.nslu2-
      linux.org/wiki/Info/Performance shows only 4.7.. So good speeds there
      it seems!


      The browsing, both graphically, and in shell on the debian box is the
      sort of expected speed - near instant


      This sort of leads me to believe its the Vista NFS client...


      Anyone had any experiences, or can shed any light onto a possible
      fix? As the speeds to my desktop are fine when it gets going, its
      this really slow browsing/navigating of folders thats the annoying
      part


      Have to take some proper performance figures later


      Cheers


      Sam
    • Sam
      ... impact ... box, ... there ... the ... Installed samba for testing... Thats nicely responsive... But fiddling with smbd/nmbd, and them running and not
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 24, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, "Sam" <sam@...> wrote:
        >
        > Vista (ultimate) has an NFS client that can be easily installed
        >
        > I thought it may be worth trying this over samba, to save some
        impact
        > (memory, cpu time) etc etc on my NSLU2
        >
        > File copying speeds arent too bad from vista (writing) - 3-4 MB/s...
        >
        > Just browsing and opening menu's is really slow
        >
        >
        > As a test, i mounted the drive on a debian vmware pc on my vista
        box,
        > used time to time the copy of an ubuntu ISO (695 Mb) from the nslu2
        > which i had put there in a couple of minutes from my vista desktop.
        > It took 2m.0.107s to copy the 695MB back to the vmware pc.
        >
        > So thats about (695/2/60) 5.97 MB/s read - http://www.nslu2-
        > linux.org/wiki/Info/Performance shows only 4.7.. So good speeds
        there
        > it seems!
        >
        >
        > The browsing, both graphically, and in shell on the debian box is
        the
        > sort of expected speed - near instant
        >
        >
        > This sort of leads me to believe its the Vista NFS client...
        >
        >
        > Anyone had any experiences, or can shed any light onto a possible
        > fix? As the speeds to my desktop are fine when it gets going, its
        > this really slow browsing/navigating of folders thats the annoying
        > part
        >
        >
        > Have to take some proper performance figures later
        >
        >
        > Cheers
        >
        >
        > Sam
        >

        Installed samba for testing...

        Thats nicely responsive... But fiddling with smbd/nmbd, and them
        running and not running.... When they are running, NFS is loads more
        responsive.

        Weird.. Must be a reason for it


        As mwester said on IRC:

        <mwester> Well, one thing to keep in mind is that there's a
        fundamental disconnect between Windows filesystems and *nix
        filesystems.
        <mwester> Windows assumes that a directory read will return *ALL* the
        info about all the files (DTM, size, etc). *nix systems return only
        the filenames, and require a stat() system call for each file of
        interest.
        <mwester> The result is the same for NFS or Samba -- a windows client
        beats the **** out of the server asking for detailed info (most of
        which it never uses).
        <mwester> Samba might actually be the better choice, as it understand
        this about Windows, and has caches and other behaviors that you can
        tune to reduce this problem.



        I think it would seem right/make more sense just to use samba



        Sam
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.