Re: smbfs: questions and issues

[wwp <subscript free fr>]

Hello Toby,


On Sun, 08 May 2016 09:30:30 +0200 Toby <etatoby gmail com> wrote:

> > I re-discover smbfs after few years, I see it's still as slow and 
> > itchy as it was  
>
> Yes, the performance and bugginess of Samba / smbfs have not been improving at all. Which is probably not 
> the developers' fault, but a poorly designed protocol. 
>
> If your setup allows it, you might want to try sshfs. Coming from smbfs, I've found it to be ridiculously 
> fast and reliable.
>
> There is also mc's internal #sh support:
>
> cd #sh:user server:/path
>
> You might want to try both (FUSE sshfs and mc #sh) and see which one works best for you. I tend to use 
> sshfs for local resources, as a replacement for smbfs or nfs, and #sh for remote resources.

I'm currently testing sshfs.. and I think I'll give up w/ smbfs :-).
Thanks for the tip!


Regards,

-- 
wwp

Attachment: pgpJKkYc53zfj.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature