OK. Maybe the 'not-so-sure' was a bit provocative on this list. <G> As I can't afford a 'Filer', Samba is ~obviously~ my best option.
WinXP reports the same figures though - maybe the answer is another DLT drive direct onto the (New-Improved!) Samba box; rather than mapping drives to the W2K backup server. Nevertheless, the sizes can't be *real* - according to the stats my drive is 3 times bigger than it was when I bought it! Point taken on the journaling FS. Can anyone compare small file performance between RH ext3 and ReiserFS? Made me think - thanks for the input -DG > -----Original Message----- > From: Jose Luis Tallon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 18 June 2003 6:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Samba] Calculating file size. > > > At 17:13 18/06/2003 +0100, you wrote: > >Hello! > >As it happens I am having some real nightmares with this too. > > > >Using NETGEAR ND520 NAS devices [Yes! I know - rod for own back...] > >But the fact it is a Linux device sold me ahead of a W2K Appliance > > > >[snip] > > If those S-O-D figures are real ( I mean, W2K is not making them up ), > you'd rather use ReiserFS for your Linux Samba server -- it would > save you > *tons* of disk > > >Sure, I'll be obseleting these NAS soon but my plan was to build a custom > >Linux Samba server to handle the task. Now I'm not so sure.... > > Why ? > > > >-DG > > > >IT Manager > >ISV > > > >-- > >To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > >instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
