Re: Debian NSLU2 NFS to Vista
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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
> (memory, cpu time) etc etc on my NSLU2box,
> 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
> used time to time the copy of an ubuntu ISO (695 Mb) from the nslu2there
> 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
> it seems!the
> The browsing, both graphically, and in shell on the debian box is
> sort of expected speed - near instantInstalled samba for testing...
> 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
> Have to take some proper performance figures later
Thats nicely responsive... But fiddling with smbd/nmbd, and them
running and not running.... When they are running, NFS is loads more
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
<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
<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