Eric Boehm wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:49:30PM -0400, bastard operater wrote:Not really much of a slowdown. I have that confirugation setup within my own network with roughly 25 users. Primarily, they are accessing Samba from the server hosting the files, however if need be those Samba shares can be accessed via NFS then Samba off the second Server. I configured the two servers 'identically' with the second server running an rsyne between the 'share' and a 'share2' over NFS, that way if the primary server fails, all I need to do is change umount 'share2' and remount it as 'share' and voila no other changes are necesary, since the same fileshares are already available through Samba via both servers.
"bastard" == bastard operater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
bastard> Thank you for the response. Would there still be a bastard> performance problem if I had two NICs in the PC? One to bastard> connect to the NFS share and the second NIC to connect to bastard> the windows PCs? I am talking about a maximum of 20 bastard> people connecting to the samba share with at most 5-6 bastard> people passing data over the share. The samba server bastard> would be a 2.2GHz PC with 512MB of RAM.
I don't think that will help you. I am talking about the overhead of
the two protocols.
For example, if you were access files via NFS, you might see something like this
client -> NFS -> NFS server
and for samba
client -> SMB (CIFS) -> Samba server
However, in your example,
client -> SMB (CIFS) -> Samba server -> NFS -> NFS server
The client has to go through two network file systems to get to the data.
If I wanted to, I could quickly edit the smb.conf file to change the 'server' name the second server broadcasts and within a few minutes everyone will be 'reconnected' to the 'original' server.
In my tests, there really is very little difference in performance.
-Rob
-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
