I bet someone could spend about 30 minutes downloading Dilbert strips, and using gimp could composite a strip to that effect. That'd be pretty cool.
William > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Michael Halcrow > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:55 AM > To: BYU Unix Users Group > Subject: Re: [uug] NFS vs SAMBA > > In the meantime, I recommend periodically poking your head into the CS > dept. sysadmin office and complaining that NFS is slow. They love it > when you do that. > > :-) > > Mike > > On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 09:09:51AM -0600, David Smith wrote: > > Here's the explanation for the CS slowness. Our file server (which runs > > both NFS and Samba) has some hardware problems. We've tried every > > possible configuration option known to man, including tracing through > > the kernel source code. The slow-down during the CS 124 final was > > amplified by the fact that their exam submission script was inefficient > > and caused our LDAP servers to also take a serious hit. We can't simply > > take down the machine during the middle of the semester and install a > > new one since it's our most mission critical machine. Even a reboot > > could cost us several hours of down-time for fsck'ing. We can't afford > > that. We have about 200 Linux NFS clients hitting the NFS server and > > about 150 Windows Samba clients hitting the same server at any given > > time. We are currently testing a brand new server that will replace the > > current file server. My stress tests thus far have been very positive. > > It's a 4-CPU (hyperthreaded) Xeon 2Ghz box with 15,000 RPM SCSI drives. > > > > 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 > > -- > ------------------------------------------- | --------------------- > Michael Halcrow | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Developer, IBM Linux Technology Center | > | > Don't buy what you can't pay for. But when | > it comes to software, don't pay for what | > you can't buy. | > ------------------------------------------- | --------------------- > GnuPG Keyprint: 05B5 08A8 713A 64C1 D35D 2371 2D3C FDDA 3EB6 601D ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
