On Sunday 28 December 2008 04:55, Dinesh Joshi wrote: > On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 1:16 AM, jtd <j...@mtnl.net.in> wrote: > > No. But you really suck. Noticed the distinct lack of a smiley. > > No? heck never mind. > > Bah...and you think I care for your remarks? :) > > >> Explain how exactly is SAMBA/CIFS better than a M$ share. > > > > Stability.... > > ooh...my gawd...stability... please backup your statements with > proofs. > > > place and found that M$XP (dont remember if it was sp2) share of > > a disk block on a M$2003 server was much slower than a simliar > > share on a linux box. It could well be because of crappy AV on > > the doze boxen, but you might as well burn the machine without > > AV. > > agreed. > > > Prima face linux would beat doze because linux has superior file > > / block handling and network infrastructure apart from the AV > > overhead (now dont get started on numbers etc unless u wanna pay > > me to do the study). > > Linux supports various file systems. It wouldn't make sense to say > linux has a superior file / block handling since not all Linux file > systems are created equal :P
This is about ANY linux fs v/s doze ntfs and fat fs under a network file sharing protocol. We are not comparing one linux fs with some other linux fs. > > Similiar informal tests with samba and nfs (both on linux boxes) > > found nfs to win. Again i had not tweaked samba in any way (and i > > havent botherd to check for tweaks either), but increased the nfs > > block size to 64k (or some such) for even better performance. > > Yeah yeah Linux beats crap out of Windows. Whose saying otherwise? > Though compatibility is an issue infact heres a bit, you can use > NFS on Windows boxes with some Unix utilities for windows software. > I forget its name. Tried it during this test. preliminary results were horrible. With the nfs shares not showing up many a times and almost always disappearing after a doze reboot. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
