Samba Shared Folders over a WAN link

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 03:23, Douglas Furlong wrote:
> > > Scot's probably right, that's the way it's going to be with Samba. But 
> > > if it's not getting the whole pipe, then maybe you can speed it up with 
> > > some kind of QOS/traffic shaping, maximizing the bandwidth that Samba 
> > > gets while leaving some minimum for other protocols/ports. 
> > 
> > Problem here is that I'm not in direct control of the link. I"m just a
> > lonely end-user trying to get to my samba box at the other end of the
> > world
> > 
> > > If Samba is 
> > > slow even when it has the whole pipe to itself, then you could look at 
> > > some kind of replication setup, for example with rsync. But probably 
> > > either of my suggestions will cost you money/effort.
> 
> If you have control of both boxes, may I suggest using NFS (tunnelling
> it through an SSH/VPN connection for security), as I believe NFS offers
> better performance of WAN's as compared to SMB.

Yes I have control of the boxes.  My File Server to my Laptop (Linux
both)

NFS is worst than SMB.

> 
> There is the added benefit, that depending on mount time options, 
No options. 

> you
> can instruct the system to not time out if the line goes down, in which
> case your applications will "hang" but as soon as the link comes back
> up, it will just carry on as if nothing ever happened, this will mean no
> lost data, which is damn'd handy.
Didn't really try that with NFS but on smb, it's re-establishes it
itself. No prob

> >From past experience if the connection to the SMB server drops, then you
> have to restart the connection (if not the computer) and it all gets
> VERY messy :(

Hmm.. No such thing here. might me YMMV though

> 
> You are also able to configure the size of the packets being sent back
> and forth, so may be able to tweak for better performance.

I would _if_ i knew how to do it