Some clarifications:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 at 23:38, Orlando Andico wrote:
> I can get 9.98MB/sec using my crap Davicom 10/100Mbps LAN card getting
> an ISO from a Linux server with an Intel EtherExpress Pro 10/100. This
> is to a machine with a single measly IDE hard drive. CPU usage is
> about 27% on the client (with a PIII-933) and 35% on the server (with
> a PIII-700).
I would just like to make clear what my initial post "Report: Optimizing
Samba" was and was not about.
o It was not about FTP's capability.
o It was not about scp's capability.
o It was not about XFS.
o It was not about ReiserFS.
o It was about Samba and how various options could affect this.
o lftp results were used as a BENCHMARK against Samba.
Although I appreciate Orly's response, of course.
In particular, though, I appreciate fooler's comments which have proven,
and are continuing to prove to be very vital inasmuch as the initial
purpose of the report was (tuning Samba). I do hope that all those using
Samba will help out so that the group can collectively improve their
serving of files to unfortunately unoptimized Windows clients.
> NB: ReiserFS is mucho faster than XFS. =)
I would appreciate reports that can qualify this. In particular I am
posting a test "Report: Qualifying XFS vs ReiserFS claims" right after
sending this reply, to which I would as always be glad to get comments.
--> Jijo
--
Federico Sevilla III :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator :: The Leather Collection, Inc.
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
