dave kempe wrote:
You really think NFS is better than CIFS/smbfs?
Define "better"? NFS runs over UDP, is stateless, and for that reason is faster, provided your network can be trusted. It uses fewer resources at the server end, and for high-performance low-security unix -> unix shares is probably better in some ways than CIFS. It doesn't have the granularity of security, doesn't require or support passwords to turn on and off mounts, and can't handle non-unix clients very effectively. It has a completely different locking paradigm, so NFS and CIFS clients don't mix too well on the same server. NFS support is available in pretty much every *ix. CIFS support varies between *ixes. NFS is easier to set up than either samba or AFS. So it's horses for courses. For my home network, NFS is better, however I don't own any windows machines. For closed networks that involve Unix systems only, NFS is better. That's not to imply it's better everywhere. -- Del -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
