Ben Donohue wrote:
Hi Slugs,
i've been playing around with windows accessing linux shares using
samba so long, i've realised i've never had linux sharing linux shares.
I have a linux server that is sharing files using smb to windows boxes.
If I wanted to now have linux workstations accessing the same data on
the linux box, is it better to stick with smb for linux as in
smbclient or is there a better way?
Ben
I use nfs because of its speed, I mount the share and treat it as a
local file. I have proved to myself a number of times by using both
samba and nfs that the speed difference is not only noticeable, but
necessary when watching movies direct from the server. Movies watched
over nfs are completely smooth, and when I jump around the movie there
is no lag, jumps 5 tracks and keeps playing instantly. Conversely, when
run with samba I get a bit of a flicker every now and then, but when I
jump tracks there is a significant delay.
It also seems to me that while nfs is many times easier to set up a
simple share, to truly secure it requires a fair bit more thought and
planning, but for me it is most definately the better of the 2.
*only uses Linux though* so have no idea how a windows client would work
with nfs. (or if there is even 3rd party software to handle nfs on the
Doze front)
My 2c
Tuxta
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
