Showing files in Linux samba share SLOW!

I've been running a Windows laptop "mapping" to 3 samba shares on a remote Linux host. This has been running fine for years. I've recently installed Linux/Ubuntu as a dual-boot OS on this same laptop. I mapped to the share from Linux with:

//mydom.com/trashbin /mnt/trash cifs credentials=/etc/samba/novatecTrashbin,_netdev,uid=mfoley,gid=mfoley	0 0

in my /etc/fstab. That maps OK, but is it horrendously slow. For example, it took over 20 minutes in Cinnamon to show 836 files in this directory. It also takes a long time in the Unity desktop, but I haven't timed it yet. if I list the folder at a command line (`ls /mnt/trash`) it takes 4 seconds.

NFS is even worse, much worse. NFS command line ls took 5 minutes the first time, then 23 secs the 2nd time.

20 minutes to show the folder in the GUI desktop makes this unusable. Does anyone have any idea how to fix this? I can't believe that Windows <--> Linux is faster than Linux <--> Linux.

I've never run into this, but I don't need to use mapped drives often. Am I correct that the slowness is in loading the mapped directories through the mapped link?

If so, try connecting to those same directories directly from your file manager (smb://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx), rather than through the mapped link to see whether that is similarly slow.

Also, while the slow connection is loading, you could show a series of traceroutes. It might might provide some more data. See man traceroute for details (that's tracert on Windows).

Frankly, I'm not really sure what either of these would show, but what is causing this has to be tracked down before it can be fixed, and these tests came to mind as a start in collecting some data.

Originally Posted by frankbell I've never run into this, but I don't need to use mapped drives often. Am I correct that the slowness is in loading the mapped directories through the mapped link? If so, try connecting to those same directories directly from your file manager (smb://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx), rather than through the mapped link to see whether that is similarly slow.

Not sure I understand your question. By "mapped link", do you mean the fstab entry? Here is my fstab entry on the client:

//mydom.com/trashbin /mnt/trash cifs credentials=/etc/samba/novatecTrashbin,_netdev,uid=mfoley,gid=mfoley	0 0
//mydom.com/homes /mnt/mfoley cifs credentials=/etc/samba/novatecTrashbin,_netdev,uid=mfoley,gid=mfoley	0 0

Also not sure what you mean by "try connecting to those same directories directly from your file manager". You have an IP template in your example, but what about the sharename? Did you just forget that? Should it be e.g. smb://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/trashbin? (I'm not in a position to test this at the moment)

Actually, I've found it is quite sufficiently fast if I use a 'List View' instead of an 'icons view'. It comes up in seconds rather than minutes. Don't really know why since there are only a handful of icons involved. I found this out accidentally because I happen to prefer the list view.

However, I think I would like to try a different file manager anyway. With Nemo, every sub-directory opened creates a new window. Navigating through a tall hierarchy fills my panel with File Manager icons. I'd rather just click the 'go to parent' (which *is* on the window) rather than close a bunch of windows.

Also, the scroll bar doesn't appear to have a spot for next/previous "page" like Windows Explorer. Makes it difficult to scroll through a long list of files. Wherever you click the scroll bar it goes to that absolute position in the list. I haven't found any settings to control this.

Before I go nutz trying different file managers, do you have a recommendation that might at least address these two peeves?

By "mapped" link, I was visualizing an icon on a desktop which could be clicked on to open the share.

By suggesting using the ip address of the share rather than the share name, I was visualizing a situation in which attempting to open a share in a file manager could avoid needing a DNS server to find the location of the share but instead go directly to the share location in the network.

My idea, malformed as it may have been, was to find a way to try to isolate what might be behind the problem you are experiencing. With no benchmarks, there are no comparisons.

I regret that you find my suggestions less than useful.

Originally Posted by mfoley Before I go nutz trying different file managers, do you have a recommendation that might at least address these two peeves?

With Nautilus, Thunar and PCManFM, clicking on a folder opens it "in place". The first two of these FM's also have settings to control this behavior. All three have back/forward buttons. Maybe there are settings in Nemo that you've overlooked?

Regarding Samba, I gave up on that and use sshfs instead. I think it's much easier. It only requires that the remote server supports ssh. Maybe it wouldn't work in your environment, though.

Frankbell:

by "mapped" link, I was visualizing an icon on a desktop which could be clicked on to open the share.

I haven't quite figured out how to do that yet: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...op-4175557743/. As to using the IP address, I don't think DNS is the issue. As I mentioned, if I use 'List View' instead of 'Icon View' it is perfectly fast. This tells me there is an issue with the File Manager.

Dave Lerner:

With Nautilus, Thunar and PCManFM, clicking on a folder opens it "in place". ... Maybe there are settings in Nemo that you've overlooked?

You are right. I found the setting: Edit > Preferences > Behavior > "Open each folder in its own window". I unchecked that and voila!

Regarding Samba, I gave up on that and use sshfs instead. I think it's much easier. It only requires that the remote server supports ssh.

I'll check that out, never heard of it. However, the server hosting the Samba mounts is used by both Linux and Windows, so I think I'll still need the Samba mechanism.

Regarding sshfs, this might be an issue for you:

For distributed remote file systems with multiple users, protocols such as Apple Filing Protocol, Network File System and Server Message Block are more often used. SSHFS is an alternative to those protocols only in situations where users are confident that files and directories will not be targeted for writing by another user, at the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSHFS

OK, I'll play with that. I am the only user of the file system in question, so "sharing" with other users is not a problem. Thanks for the info.