On Thursday, 11/17/2005 at 03:34 EST, David Kreuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > from an architecture perspective is ftp doing the same thing as nfs/samba? FTP > is more of a come and get it - samba/nfs are here when you want it. Just a > thought.
Not the same. FTP is a file *transfer* method. NFS and SAMBA are file *access* methods. FTP servers use file APIs, but NFS and SAMBA are lower-level interfaces, existing below the file API itself. Hence you can randomly access the contents of a file with NFS or SAMBA, but FTP requires that you move the whole file, whether you want it or not. Sometimes that's good and sometimes it isn't. But the integration of NFS and SAMBA below the file API means applications don't change. You don't have to "pre-read via FTP" the file to get a local copy - just access the file as if it were local. cp (copy) using NFS or SAMBA is equivalent to a binary FTP, but now you have two copies and the second copy may not be as secure as the original. So while some uses of FTP get the same result as NFS or SAMBA, they are definitely different architectural models. Lots of things to think about when designing such solutions. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
