: I would like to know which would be faster in a mounted environment. I : hear Samba could offer better performance. I think in the Talmage labs : they connect to a NFS server(I dunno), and during CS142 finals it was : way frustrating, because when basically every computer in the building : is using the network drive the system(network? i dunno) was painfully : slow. I don't know if this is NFS or what, but I remember how it was : the worst. Although I'll never be using more than 8 computers on my : network, it would be nice to know what I should actually use for the : best performance(mainly speed) to mount my Linux boxes(I'll run Samba : for the windows ones). I'd appreciate any opinions, or other alternate : suggestions.
Obviously for a good sized mixed environment, Samba is the better choice since loading a win32 NFS client on a lot of systems could be more pain than it's worth.. And with ?indows I would think that the SMB protocol would be right at home and perform better than NFS.. But in a straight Linux environment, there is no question. A properly configured NFS will beat Samba anytime hands down. This has been proven.. You can search google and find NFS and Samba benchmarks and comparisons all day long.. The only issue you have to worry about with NFS is security. But if it's all internal, no problems.. I have a client that uses rsync + openssl.. I've never checked into any benchmarks or whatnot, but it seems pretty fast.. And it's secure as well.. So it security is a concern, might be an option to check out.. And remember, if it says "hub", spit it out!! Later, Bob ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
