Thunar not very smart with moving files on SMB share

David Gerard · 2011-10-27 20:33:35

I'm an aspiring GNOME3/Unity refugee, looking into XFCE as a desktop that doesn't wish it was a phone. So I'm trying various bits in my existing GNOME 2.32 installation.

I have a household server which has all the music and video on it. I usually use this over Samba. (Linux to Linux over Samba, yes.) Open stuff in Nautilus, play it. I'm very used to this and it's worked well in GNOME2 for many years now.

So I've been trying this with Thunar (1.21 from Ubuntu 11.04), because Nautilus is very shaky in Ubuntu of late. And I notice that if I move files from one place to another on the SMB share ... Thunar doesn't tell the SMB server to move the file on the server, it copies it from one place on the share to another via the local machine!

This is startlingly inefficient ... putting a folder inside another folder can take minutes instead of the fraction of a second it takes in Nautilus. (And gratuitously messes up file creation times.)

I've gotten used to managing files on the share via the file manager. Is this a reportable bug, or a feature request? Is Nautilus actually doing something extremely clever, or is Thunar just not yet aware of how to do this more efficiently?

Last edited by David Gerard (2011-10-27 20:36:59)

angstrom · 2011-10-27 21:52:01

As I remember, Thunar don't really manage and like "network" files. I think ... (thunar dev are free to scold me if I'm wrong ! )

Why don't you use NFS if it is Linux <=> Llinux ? With this, Thunar won't differentiate normal folder and network folder.
A good begining for NFS :
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/NFS
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/NFSv4

It is for Arch so some commands may differ from your distro but the configuration is the same. I use those tutorial to install my backup system.

David Gerard · 2011-10-27 21:55:59

Because there are also a Mac and a Windows box that need to talk to the share :-) And because it's possible to do it right with SMB, so I presume file managers *should* do it right with SMB.

I could also share via NFS. Have you actually tried Thunar with NFS? Does it do the move intelligently?

(I know Nautilus doesn't work with SSH, even Nautilus gets that one wrong and copies the file down and back up again.)

[I use NFS at work. The main problem with NFS is that it encourages hard dependencies on flaky systems - and pretending a flaky system is reliable doesn't make it reliable. SMB tends to assume flakiness from flaky systems, so things that talk to it a lot tend to fail soft rather than hard.]

Last edited by David Gerard (2011-10-27 22:26:12)

Nick · 2011-10-28 06:27:36

I'm pretty sure this is entirely up to gvfs, but I could be wrong. Remote file systems are not widely testing in Thunar and it is one of the targets to improve for 4.10.

David Gerard · 2011-10-28 07:19:43

If this sort of thing is on the radar for 4.10, that's excellent news and would count as a solution :-) Is there a good place to request this particular one (be smart about remote file moving) of the devs?

jannis · 2011-10-28 11:41:02

@David: You can file a bug against Thunar. I'll have to look into whether this is possible at all though. We use GIO for file operations and if its copy/move operations do not operate solely on the server but go through the user's machine instead, then there is nothing we can do about it in Xfce.

angstrom · 2011-10-28 11:49:54

David Gerard wrote:

Because there are also a Mac and a Windows box that need to talk to the share :-) And because it's possible to do it right with SMB, so I presume file managers *should* do it right with SMB.
I could also share via NFS. Have you actually tried Thunar with NFS? Does it do the move intelligently?
(I know Nautilus doesn't work with SSH, even Nautilus gets that one wrong and copies the file down and back up again.)
[I use NFS at work. The main problem with NFS is that it encourages hard dependencies on flaky systems - and pretending a flaky system is reliable doesn't make it reliable. SMB tends to assume flakiness from flaky systems, so things that talk to it a lot tend to fail soft rather than hard.]

Hi,

I tested NFS today : the move is intelligent but the copy is not. The copy will download and upload the file again to distant machine. So that the same if you do in command line or Thunar.

What do you mean by flaky system ?

Last edited by angstrom (2011-10-28 11:50:54)

David Gerard · 2011-10-28 16:43:49

Flakiness: Remote hosts can disappear - this is inherent to the notion of a remote host. Does your system stop working, or does it error in a recoverable fashion? What implicit assumptions is your system making about the reliability of the remote system? Ever done df at the command line and had it hang so hard that ^C or ^Z don't work because a remote host disconnected? SMB client systems *tend* to assume lower reliability (greater flakiness) of the remote host, meaning problems with the host or network don't completely break your own box.

Thanks for testing :-) Pleasing to hear NFS works - that may be a plausible option for my setup then. (Assuming I can softmount, so as not to see the effects I describe above.) I would expect copy only to work with a round-trip through the local host. (Is there any remote file system that *doesn't* round-trip copies through the local host?)

Last edited by David Gerard (2011-10-28 16:46:05)

angstrom · 2011-10-28 17:51:50

David Gerard wrote:

Flakiness: Remote hosts can disappear - this is inherent to the notion of a remote host. Does your system stop working, or does it error in a recoverable fashion? What implicit assumptions is your system making about the reliability of the remote system? Ever done df at the command line and had it hang so hard that ^C or ^Z don't work because a remote host disconnected?

Yes yes ! I got those problem today while copying big file (1GB) throught wireless (1MB/s) : impossibility to kill the cp process. I have to restart local network !! I've always been using nfs at school, at work, at home. I never have problem. May be because I work with small files and I have good wired connection.

I would expect "cp" to be intelligent like "mv" ... anyway, I used to run command using ssh so I don't have this kind of problem.

Good luck

Xfce Forum

Sub domains

#1 2011-10-27 20:33:35

Thunar not very smart with moving files on SMB share

#2 2011-10-27 21:52:01

Re: Thunar not very smart with moving files on SMB share

#3 2011-10-27 21:55:59

Re: Thunar not very smart with moving files on SMB share

#4 2011-10-28 06:27:36

Re: Thunar not very smart with moving files on SMB share

#5 2011-10-28 07:19:43

Re: Thunar not very smart with moving files on SMB share

#6 2011-10-28 11:41:02

Re: Thunar not very smart with moving files on SMB share

#7 2011-10-28 11:49:54

Re: Thunar not very smart with moving files on SMB share

#8 2011-10-28 16:43:49

Re: Thunar not very smart with moving files on SMB share

#9 2011-10-28 17:51:50

Re: Thunar not very smart with moving files on SMB share

Board footer