Ian Malone ibmal...@gmail.com writes:
On 5 March 2014 13:21, lee l...@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:34 AM, lee l...@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
As to NFS, I have had bad experiences with it, like network cards
freezing up and
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:34 AM, lee l...@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
As to NFS, I have had bad experiences with it, like network cards
freezing up and computers being halted because NFS failed for unknown
reasons. I never got it to work reliably and would not recommend using
NFS for anything.
Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:34 AM, lee l...@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
As to NFS, I have had bad experiences with it, like network cards
freezing up and computers being halted because NFS failed for unknown
reasons. I never got it to work reliably
On 5 March 2014 13:21, lee l...@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:34 AM, lee l...@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
As to NFS, I have had bad experiences with it, like network cards
freezing up and computers being halted because NFS failed
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Dan Mossor dan.mos...@outlook.com wrote:
These 4GiB transfers sometimes take close to 3 to 4 hours using NFS, and it
is a Gigabit network.
I regularly transfer files of 1 or 2 GB over NFS between two fairly
slow 32-bit machines on a 100Mbps Ethernet. Takes 2 or 3
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Marko Vojinovic vvma...@gmail.com wrote:
If you do it this way, it should
really not matter much which transfer protocol you are using. NFS,
samba, ftp, scp, rsync, even http --- they should all give you roughly
the same (fast) performance
I disagree.
On 03/04/14 22:23, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Marko Vojinovic vvma...@gmail.com
mailto:vvma...@gmail.com wrote:
If you do it this way, it should
really not matter much which transfer protocol you are using. NFS,
samba, ftp, scp, rsync, even http ---
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Ed Greshko ed.gres...@greshko.com wrote:
So, you are offering advice to use a protocol which may or may not exist
and be available now? And of which you have no current experience?
I'm offering a pointer to check whether Samba.org currently supports
NETBEUI
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Ed Greshko ed.gres...@greshko.com wrote:
So, you are offering advice to use a protocol which may or may not exist
and be available now?
I'm asking the samba devs right now to learn something in the process
(current status of NETBEUI support in Samba 4.x), and
hello ed,
On 03/04/14 20:33, Ed Greshko wrote:
So, you are offering advice to use a protocol which may or
may not exist and be available now? And of which you have
no current experience?
Wouldn't it make better sense to cite performance comparisons
of the various common protocols?
On Mar 4, 2014 8:32 AM, Pete Travis li...@petetravis.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 2014 7:58 PM, Dan Mossor dan.mos...@outlook.com wrote:
.
When the DVD is built, I pull the updates across the local network to
my machine and build the DVD there. These 4GiB transfers sometimes take
close to 3 to 4
On 03/04/14 22:48, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Ed Greshko ed.gres...@greshko.com
mailto:ed.gres...@greshko.com wrote:
So, you are offering advice to use a protocol which may or may not exist
and be available now?
I'm asking the samba devs right now to
Dan Mossor dan.mos...@outlook.com writes:
When the DVD is built, I pull the updates across the local network to
my machine and build the DVD there. These 4GiB transfers sometimes
take close to 3 to 4 hours using NFS, and it is a Gigabit
network.
Have you checked the bandwidth usage during
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:48:47 -0300
Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm asking the samba devs right now to learn something in the process
(current status of NETBEUI support in Samba 4.x), and to lower your
anxiety. ;)
So? What did the samba devs say? Did they even bother to answer the
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Marko Vojinovic vvma...@gmail.com wrote:
So? What did the samba devs say? Did they even bother to answer the
question?
Best, :-)
Here's the update: the last kernel on top of which you can run NETBEUI
is 2.4 [1]
Nobody seems to have ported the required kernel
On 03/05/14 14:54, Fernando Cassia wrote:
Here's the update: the last kernel on top of which you can run NETBEUI
is 2.4
So, aren't you happy you've helped the OP avoid doing the research only to
learn it wouldn't have helped him at all? :-)
--
Getting tired of non-Fedora discussions and
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Ed Greshko ed.gres...@greshko.com wrote:
So, aren't you happy you've helped the OP avoid doing the research only to
learn it wouldn't have helped him at all? :-)
I'm happy of having done the research to learn something myself and
educate others in the process.
On 02/28/2014 01:02 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Mark Haney mha...@practichem.com wrote:
On 02/28/14 12:07, Dan Mossor wrote:
What do y'all consider the most efficient network file system? NFS?
SMB? SFTP?
Maybe you should outline your requirements a bit
use nfs...but make sure you *read* from a nfs mount of the data and
write to local disk.
Note that to make a network filesystem safe during writing that it is
going to usually be slower, and because of that reading is
significantly faster than writing.
And in general if you are using small files
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 20:58:36 -0600
Dan Mossor dan.mos...@outlook.com wrote:
When the DVD is built, I pull the updates across the local network to
my machine and build the DVD there. These 4GiB transfers sometimes
take close to 3 to 4 hours using NFS, and it is a Gigabit network.
rsync appeared
What do y'all consider the most efficient network file system? NFS? SMB?
SFTP?
I've been doing a lot of file transfers across the network, and have
been, well, less than impressed with the performance of NFS.
I haven't set up a samba server yet (and I wasn't sure the SMB protocol
itself
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/28/14 12:07, Dan Mossor wrote:
What do y'all consider the most efficient network file system? NFS?
SMB? SFTP?
I've been doing a lot of file transfers across the network, and
have been, well, less than impressed with the performance of
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Mark Haney mha...@practichem.com wrote:
Samba seems to work pretty well for
me when I need it, which is fairly often.
Old-school Netbeui was faster, but it's also ancient and deprecated.
FC
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote:
Old-school Netbeui was faster, but it's also ancient and deprecated.
To expand on the above, a helpful quote:
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/73final/6556/6556pro_021.html
---
A.3.2 NetBEUI Protocol
The NetBIOS Extended
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Mark Haney mha...@practichem.com wrote:
On 02/28/14 12:07, Dan Mossor wrote:
What do y'all consider the most efficient network file system? NFS?
SMB? SFTP?
Maybe you should outline your requirements a bit more. For example
SFTP is not a filesystem, so are you
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:07:38AM -0600, Dan Mossor wrote:
What do y'all consider the most efficient network file system? NFS?
SMB? SFTP?
NFS over UDP. Less reliable, but less overhead. Can be significant if you
have a lot of data to push around.
--
Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project
26 matches
Mail list logo
