On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 06:00:52PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > > NFS is a more native network filesystem for unix machines, so it > > really only makes sense to use samba if you have some compelling reason > > not to use NFS. Do you have some reason NFS would be bad in this case? > > > > > I had tried NFS previously - and didn't enjoy it. I had numerous > > lockups. Samba appeared to provide a much more fault-tolerant > > environment. I will admit it's possible there were physical > > connectivity issues that have since been corrected. > > That sheds a whole new light on it - you're definitely going about this > wrong, if you are doing unix-to-unix filesharing and you expect cifs to be > better than nfs... You should instead concentrate your effort on > configuring NFS right. If it's configured right, NFS is the more resilient > protocol. You can even reboot the NFS server in the middle of file > operations, and there will be no problem (just a delay) on the client.
The same is true of a Samba server, as the clients are usually coded to do reconnects correctly (remember they originally were designed to work only with Windows servers :-). Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
