Hello Toby,
On Sun, 08 May 2016 09:30:30 +0200 Toby <etat...@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
pgpFM5UotvtGs.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ mc mailing list https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc
