Has anyone else here noticed that smbfs (via the kernel) is much much
slower and problematic than say, smbclient (the userland program)?
I've got several PC's who's drives are shared with and mounted on a Linux
box (486dx2-66, ne2k, 12MB), and I can't get better than 130K/s and I/O
errors (on last write I presume) with smbfs but can get > 500K/s with
smbclient (so I know the PC's aren't the problem). Also these I/O errors
are trouble since it can screw up a copy in the middle.
This is pre2.0.31-3 BTW, so it's all in there -- theoretically.
Also, is ":" an illegal character in vfat filenames or something? smbfs
or smbclient will not let me write a file with a colon in it.
Later...
- Steve
.------------------------------------------------. # * # # # # # #
| Steve Baker | Barely Working | # ## # # # # #
| ice@mama.indstate.edu | System Administrator | # # # # # # # #
| Red-Hat Rulz! | Will work for hardware | # # # ## # # # #
`-- SYS-ADMIN FOR HIRE, HAVE UNIX, WILL TRAVEL --' #### # # # ## # #