> I've changed my desktop to Linux and I wanted to start using something else
> than samba to connect to my devbox. I have problems making nfs work on the
> other side so I tried sshfs. Unfortunately it's very slow.
> I did this on the same directory with ~10k files mounted with sshfs and
> time ls -R >/dev/null
> samba 0.534s
> sshfs 14.784s
Cashe cold, both cases? Sshfs has a default attribute timeout of
20sec, which may be too low for some tastes. I don't know what samba
defaults to, but you can try to raise it on sshfs with
> I don't need lightening fast performance, I'm working with small files, but
> when I check code from svn I get 2 files a second... which makes it
You could try debugging what takes so long with:
sshfs -odebug,sshfs_debug ... > /tmp/sshfs.log
This will print some timing information into the log.
> I've never used fuse/sshfs before, so I don't know what performance to
> expect, is there something wrong with my setup or is it just not suitable as
> a nfs/samba replacement?
NFS is definitely faster, but it doesn't do encryption. I vaguely
remember, that samba doesn't encypt everything either. So from a
performance standpoint, sshfs will probably never be as good as other