smbfs very slow
Hactar
eben at gate.net
Thu Oct 4 16:43:02 GMT 2001
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Urban Widmark wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Hactar wrote:
>
> > No. It hangs regardless (presumably in the same place).
>
> Ok, I have other reports of things failing with longer dir listings /
> larger dircache operations. I'll probably do some ls/find tests this
> weekend.
Thanks.
> How much memory does the linux box have?
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 384984 381780 3204 0 3700 286516
-/+ buffers/cache: 91564 293420
Swap: 103312 1844 101468
> And does it improve things if you try to minimize your memory use?
I'm already using little RAM (no Gnome or other RAM-suckers). When I exit
X and its associated hangers-on:
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 384984 327248 57736 0 2604 292656
-/+ buffers/cache: 31988 352996
Swap: 103312 1788 101524
same effect.
> > I see that too, 141 of them to 113 "110"s.
>
> How far apart?
(h:mm) 0:35, 1:00, 0, 8:04, 0:27, ... really no pattern that I can
discern. Some of those intervals (8:04?) I may not have had the share
mounted, though.
> And do they relate to the mount being idle?
The mount is never idle, in that there is always some action pending. No
action _completes_ for long periods of time, so it may be idle, depending
on your definition of "idle". I can never get it to behave for more than
a few seconds at a time, in order to do anything substantial with the
shares.
I started a process reading from a share. It was producing messages on
the quarter-hour. I hit ^C, and the process exited about when a message
was logged (+/- 1s). No further messages were produced, even though the
share stayed mounted. No activity took place to the share. In that time
(between mount and ^C) the errors reported were three 104s and one 110.
--
-eben eben at gate.net http://home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar/
An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all.
-Oscar Wilde
More information about the samba
mailing list