radish;441141 Wrote: > Indeed, it is interesting. One thing I have read is that Linux often has > better network performance than Windows (at the stack level), and that > CIFS isn't always that great performance wise, which would certainly > explain the directory scan differences. Wouldn't (shouldn't!) affect the > db specific stuff though. Would be interested to see the difference > scanning from local files rather than the NAS, if only to eliminate the > network stack. > > But thanks, enlightening! There seems to be something sub-optimal about Windows' performance with CIFS or SMB, but it's hard to know for sure without doing a local library comparison like radish suggests. A couple years back I tested scanning a NAS library with Win2K vs. Ubuntu on truly identical hardware: the same dual-boot machine. Ubuntu was 40% faster then. http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=193722&highlight=40%25#post193722
-- aubuti ------------------------------------------------------------------------ aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65585 _______________________________________________ unix mailing list unix@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/unix
