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

Re: Debian NSLU2 NFS to Vista

Expand Messages
  • Sam
    ... impact ... box, ... there ... the ... Installed samba for testing... Thats nicely responsive... But fiddling with smbd/nmbd, and them running and not
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 24, 2008
    • 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.