What I can tell you about Samba vs. NFS: The SMB protocol requires a pretty beafy box because it does a lot of computation. NFS is just raw UDP traffic that uses RPC. Not much computation involved there. If I had a large deployment of Linux boxes, I would not use Samba to mount shares between the machines. I would definitely go with NFS.
--Dave
Kekoa Vincent wrote:
I would like to know which would be faster in a mounted environment. I
hear Samba could offer better performance. I think in the Talmage labs
they connect to a NFS server(I dunno), and during CS142 finals it was
way frustrating, because when basically every computer in the building
is using the network drive the system(network? i dunno) was painfully
slow. I don't know if this is NFS or what, but I remember how it was
the worst. Although I'll never be using more than 8 computers on my
network, it would be nice to know what I should actually use for the
best performance(mainly speed) to mount my Linux boxes(I'll run Samba
for the windows ones). I'd appreciate any opinions, or other alternate
suggestions.
____________________
BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
