El Diumenge, 24 de novembre de 2013, a les 19:42:25, Mark Gaiser va escriure:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org> wrote:
> > In Okular we just got bug
> > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=327846
> > PDF Render time is unreasonably slow over cifs on high latency (WAN)
> > network connections
> > 
> > Basically the issue is that poppler is quite read-intensive over files,
> > reading them over and over, and since the file is "local but really
> > remote" it takes ages to render for big files.
> > 
> > The only solution i can think of is doing a local copy and then working on
> > that.
> 
> That would work with small files (< 10 MB) but will get you into
> trouble for bigger files.

Why?

> You can't - or shouldn't - do that in an automated manner. If the user
> manually copies the file and then opens it in a pdf reader: fine. Just
> don't auto copy the file. So you can probably give the user a popup
> suggesting them to copy the file to his local drive?

Why? If you open a huge file by smb:// it'll copy it to the local file anyway, 
so why should not we copy it?

> 
> > I saw KMountPoint::probablySlow that says
> > 
> >     /**
> >     
> >      * Checks if the filesystem that is probably slow (nfs mounts).
> >      * @return true if the filesystem is probably slow
> >      */
> > 
> > And then returns true if the the filesystem type of the mount is nfs,
> > autofs or subfs.
> > 
> > Any objection to replacing
> > 
> >     /**
> >     
> >      * Checks if the filesystem that is probably slow (nfs mounts).
> >      * @return true if the filesystem is probably slow
> >      */
> > 
> > to
> > 
> >     /**
> >     
> >      * Checks if the filesystem that is probably slow (network mounts).
> >      * @return true if the filesystem is probably slow
> >      */
> > 
> > and adding cifs to the list of mounttypes that are "probablySlow"?
> 
> It's not my place to object since the code isn't mine. Yet i do
> disagree. Everything becomes slow if you mount it over a WAN. Whatever
> it is. It also depends on your internet connection and where you're
> connecting to. Saying smb, nfs or cifs is slow - per se - is plain
> wrong. All of those are "likely" fast if you mount them locally.

That's why it's called "probablySlow", no?

> 
> > Or anyone has a better suggestion to fix this issue?
> 
> What should be done is detecting is the target is mounted via a slow
> connection. So if it's mounted via the internet then "probablySlow"
> should return true. On the other hand, i don't know if such checks are
> in place and if they are not there, how to implement them.

How are you going to define "slow connection"?

Cheers,
  Albert

> 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> >   Albert
> 
> Just my 5 cents.