> Well, it sounds like WinXP is trying to avoid the nasty consequences of > a dead connection - or it might have something todo with the 'offline > file cache'. Either way, I think that ignoring the smbecho as > 'activity' would probably be a bad idea. > > In this case it's a bit of a pity that the cost of processing that echo > is so high, but I can't really see a good way around it.
First guess: The inactive smbd proces has to be wake-up/swapin etc. , thats what's taking it's time on a low-memory system. The 'ping' itself doesnt take that much resources imo. Trough money at the problem ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
