[KLUG Members] Samba client vs. WinXPee
Adam Tauno Williams
members@kalamazoolinux.org
Fri, 9 May 2003 19:43:46 -0400
>is there a way to turn down some timeouts, or anything else to reduce
>the overhead (short of installing LInux on a person's machine that
>isn't mature enough to be "enlightened")
The drag is initial, he didn't indicate that performance was worse once started.
Samba and WinXP have different name-space defaults, WinXP probably has to fail
out of its first couple of tries - indicating that the DHCP server isn't shoving
down a sufficiently detailed configuration. I've seen this more than a couple
of times.
Also make sure you don't have one of those retarded firewall apps running in
your sys-tray.
Try disabling "Simple File Sharing" on the XP client. Why this affects bieng a
client? Beats the hell out of me, and there happens to be alot of hell in me,
so that takes awhile.
> is there a way to install Samba on windows, and use that instead of
> window's built-in SMB/CIFS implementation?
Ethereal will demonstrate that the number of RPC calls placed by a Samba client
and an Win32sinceNT4 client are roughly the same.
>>>well, got a question:
>>>my school has a windows 2000 file server that has everybody's
>>>personal "H: drive" (as it's called here). Over the wireless and
>>>Cisco VPN, my Mac (os 10.2.6) and my linux machine (SuSE 8.2) both
>>>connect to the file server instantly. when a windows XP machine is on
>>>the wireless, it takes about 2 minutes or more to bring up the
>>>username/password prompt. I talked to the IT department here, they
>>>don't think much can be done about it. My question to your all is,
>>>why is Samba so much better over the wireless here than windoze?