I agree.. I think I heard that elsewhere too, Samba faster.... I used to
backup this network with xbru under my rhl 5.0 box but at the time
backed up windows 95 and an os/2 warp 4 box, fine.... So not I
am backing up from a rhl5.2 pc, to backup a rhl6.0 and windows95.
And actually, the rhl6.0 box has a vmware setup for win98 on a
RAW disk (it's own disk) so when that is mounted on the RHL5.2
pc, it is a file system, not just a big file. This is probably someting
to do with a Samba version......
> I don't know the details, but apparently Samba is much faster than nfs. We
> have some folks out here who mount networked linux drives via Sambe and it
> works well for them.
>
> The issue with BRU I cannot address. I've been running bru for a couple of
> years now, and used to back up the win95 and dos7 partitions with it, too.
> All I did was mount the partitions (/mnt/win95 and /mnt/dos7) and bru backed
> them up, too.
>
> Now I'm running VMware so the virtual win98 machine is a 2G file in ext2
> format. No problem there, either.
>
> Rich
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
