File walking issue?

[Max Kipness]

> I'm having an issue with one particular server and am hoping someone
> here has dealt with this.
> 
>  
> 
> I'm not sure whether this is a strictly samba issue or relates to the
> way rsync walks the file list.
> 
>  
> 
> Basically after mounting a Windows 2000 file system using and then
> rsyncing the contents of this mount, it seems to take 5 - 8 hours to
> complete. I've checked on the log periodically and determined that
it's
> the 'building of the file list' that is taking 95% of the time. We are
> only talking about 140,000 files. I do many samba shares and not of
them
> have this issue. When doing a manual 'ls' command in various
directories
> on the mount, I encounter no slowness or anything out of the ordinary.
> The samba log doesn't give much of a clue either.
> 
>  
> 
> Has anybody come across this? Or does anybody have any ideas of how to
> troubleshoot?
> 
>  
> 
> Oh, and I'm using Rsync 2.6

Max - what is the OS of the machine you're using to access the Win2K SMB

share from?  I ask because the reference implementation of Samba - ie, 
the ftp-alike smbclient - works just dandy under every OS I've looked 
at, but the kernel implementation of smbfs under FreeBSD (and possibly 
other BSDs, I'm not sure) is severely broken - it will work fine for 
small operations from an interactive prompt, but if you ask it to handle

several thousand files, it slows to an absolute crawl.  This is not an 
rsync-samba interaction problem, it occurs even with a simple cp 
/mnt/smbshare/* /home/whoever type command as well, if significant 
numbers of files are involved.

Hope this helps.

------------------------------------------------------

I'm actually using RedHat 9 with Samba 2.2.8a. 3.0 was giving me a
slight  issue with hanging on the mount command.

I've got this same basic setup on several servers but this is the only
one giving me this issue. I have one that does 130,000 from a samba
mount that takes 8 minutes for both the 'file walk' and the actual
syncing of files.

I've tried a -vv and it doesn't show much of interest. I may try a
triple v.

Thanks,
Max