[Samba] Which version do I need for SMB2?

[John Klimek]

Thanks very much for the help.

I'm using a private network so I don't need to worry about
authentication security (eg. Kerberos, etc) and because I'm using
Windows Server 2008 I have the option of using SMB or NFS.

I'm serving both a Windows client and a Linux client but with Windows
Server 2008 I can use SMB for the Windows client and NFS for the Linux
client.  (eg. W2K8 can support both NFS and SMB at the same time)

I was only wondering which is faster for Linux because I can choose
between either technology.

I guess I'll just try to benchmark both protocols on Linux and see
which is faster.  I was just trying to get some opinions on which
would be better in my situation.  (eg. serving large video files from
W2K8 to Ubuntu 9.04)

Thanks for the help,
John

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Helmut Hullen<Hullen at t-online.de> wrote:
> Hallo, John,
>
> Du meintest am 19.08.09:
>
>> Last question then...
>
>> What about NFS versus SMB?  Are both about the same speed?
>
> [fullquote deleted]
>
> NFS is faster, but (in my opinion, and without Kerberos etc.) less
> secure.
>
> On some machines I had mounted NFS shares from other machines and had
> made SMB shares out of them. Ugly, but most times it worked. Sometimes
> it was horribly slow.
>
> If you have to serve windows clients, smb is the first (or only) choice.
> If you have to serve linux clients, you should run cifs, the alternative
> NFS + NIS (or something like that) is ugly.
>
> Maybe Volker's idea to "implement" the NFS/NIS-crap into "winbindd" may
> lead to a fine solution.
>
> Viele Gruesse!
> Helmut
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
>