Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 04:36:46PM -0500, Jim Nance wrote:
>
> > Would anyone like to comment on this?
>
> I don't know why you expected smbfs to be faster than NFS... NFS is a
> simplistic design, SMB is not (not even close).
>
> We use both here... NFS is pretty good most of the time, even over
> slow wan links. SMB is pretty hideous on circuits less than 256K or
> so, and some operations (like expanding the network neighborhood tree
> under Win98 and damned painful -- even over a lan).
>
> For copying large files (100MB+) about, both seem on a par with each
> other...
However, if you are using a Microsoft client to copy something large
over a slow WAN via SMB, you can kiss off using your machine for
anything else until the copy completes (I've observed this using Win95,
Win NT and Win98). If you are using a Samba client, you can at least
continue to use your machine of other work...
-Tom
-- Tom Eastep Compaq Computer Corporation Enterprise Computing Group Tandem Division tom.eastep@compaq.com --------------AA210A17D7095EA8385CA785 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="eastep.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Tom Eastep Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="eastep.vcf"begin:vcard n:Eastep;Tom x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Compaq Computer Corporation;Tandem Division adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:tom.eastep@compaq.com x-mozilla-cpt:;-6528 fn:Tom Eastep end:vcard
--------------AA210A17D7095EA8385CA785--
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/