> > 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. There is the added benefit, that depending on mount time 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. >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 :( 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. Just a thought. doug
