I cannot believe I find myself in the position of defending SMB, but despite
some very valid criticisms, there is some misinformation here which I just
cannot let go unanswered...
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Paul Lussier wrote:
> SMB is inherently buggy and incredibly slow.
SMB has higher overhead and an incredibly crufty design. But in some cases,
SMB can actually be quite a bit faster than NFS. For example, with oplocks,
the client can cache file accesses locally, greatly reducing network traffic.
> Additionally, SMB is non-routable, where as NFS just rides on top of IP.
This is incorrect. SMB, as implemented in Linux, uses NetBIOS-over-IP,
which is as routable as anything-else-over-IP. NetBEUI is not routable, but
until very recently, NetBEUI wasn't even possible on Linux.
> You can play some tricks with Windows networking, but that's really
> placing WINS over IP, not SMB.
WINS (Windows Internet Name Service) is Microsoft's name for NBNS (NetBIOS
Name Service), which maps NetBIOS names to IP addresses -- similar in concept
to DNS. Saying using WINS invalidates SMB is like saying using DNS
invalidates NFS. :-)
> If you really want the low-down on how ugly SMB is ...
SMB may be ugly, but on Linux, in the past, it has actually been better
supported in the kernel than NFS! For a long time, Linux's NFS locking was
broken, which could cause *data loss*. I'll take "slow" over "fast but loses
data" any day. :-)
I understand NFS has been greatly improved in recent releases, now that some
outstanding patches have finally been integrated into the mainline kernel.
> Keep in mind, that that SMB uses *user* based authentication.
Keep in mind that NFS uses *blind host trust relationships*. A hashed
password might not be a very secure authentication method, but it's a damn
sight better then simply assuming everything from a given IP is trusted! :-)
Also: User-based authentication is very often a feature, not a bug.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Other SMB bummers:
>
> 1. It's stateful more intensely so than NFSv3 or NFSv4 will
> ever be.
I consider this a feature, not a bug. Unix file I/O is a stateful thing.
Trying to make it stateless is, IMNSHO, an error. :-)
> 3. Browse lists suck.
Don't do that, then! If you use "Broadcast" or "Hybrid" mode, SMB will
suck. If you use a 2400 modem without error correction, NFS will suck, too.
Use WINS with all nodes in "Peer" mode, and get rid of all that crap. :-)
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Karl J. Runge wrote:
>> My biggest beefs with NFS are that failure modes have a tendency to wedge
>> things, and there is no concept of per-user authentication.
>
> I was wondering if you have looked into NFS v4 yet? I haven't, but it
> might have the per-user authentication you are interested in.
Admittedly, I have not. And while I haven't checked up on NFS on Linux in
awhile, last I heard, NFSv4 was a *long* ways away. :-)
> I would be curious to hear anything you or anyone else on the list have to
> say about NFS v4.
Me too -- anyone here played with NFSv4? On other Unixes, even?
> Oh, yes, here are some links on it:
Cool. One more thing to put in my near-infinite pile of Stuff To Read(TM).
;-)
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Net Technologies, Inc. <http://www.ntisys.com>
Voice: (800)905-3049 x18 Fax: (978)499-7839
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
