Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I'd much rather use NFS than SMB. It's generally far more efficient.
However, God only knows how much crap an NFS server running on
MS-Windows would have to work against, so it might be that it actually
takes longer to run.
I recommend running some I/O benchmarks eg.
This point is very important. You will have to do the equivalent of
exporting to the server with "root" enabled. In Unix this usually is an
option like "root=X" or on Linux "no_root_squash" otherwise you may not
have sufficient priviledges to read the files. It may look like the
backups
I have just a couple M$oft Win2K boxes that I would like my newly installed
Amanda system to backup. I do have NFS servers running on them and
presently mount the data directory's, via NFS, onto a Linux box. Keeping in
mind that I have 50 GB of data (very little) , and have a 12 hour window
On Apr 5, 2001, "Dave Hecht" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is easiest to maintain/setup - NFS mount the Win2k volumes onto the
Linux box and use a gnu-tar-index backup, or install samba and use
smbclient. I lean towards NFS, is there any reason I should not?
I'd much rather use NFS than
... I lean towards NFS, is there any reason I should not?
I know very little about this, but the one thing that popped to mind is
whether an MS NFS server would give a tar running as root on a client (to
NFS) enough access to get to everything. The normal action is to convert
all root requests
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Dave Hecht wrote:
I have just a couple M$oft Win2K boxes that I would like my newly installed
Amanda system to backup. I do have NFS servers running on them and
presently mount the data directory's, via NFS, onto a Linux box. Keeping in
mind that I have 50 GB of data
