[linux-cifs-client] Re: WebDAV vs CIFS

[Juan Carlos Schroeder]

Ok, thanks.

I was planning to use it for editing documents or other files, almost in write-only mode. 
In conclusion, as CIFS has caching (with some server sincronization policy, I suppose something such as synchronization "on close", which is enough for me) I think it would be better to use it. 
As you say, AFS may work even better, but also more complex I think.

Juan Carlos

  "Steven French" <sfrench at us.ibm.com> escribió en el mensaje news:OF95494895.4F7D94ED-ON87256EF3.0074AE62-86256EF3.00750875 at us.ibm.com...

  WebDav is pretty slow if I remember correctly, but may be fine for your use since the link is slow anyway so you might not notice.  .   CIFS caching for oplocked (cached) files should be fine while the file is open but it does not keep a files cached copy in a file on the client's disk ala AFS (it instead it leverages the common Linux mm readahead/writebehind caching which is in memory caching).   I didn't think that WebDav cached safely (at least the Linux implementation) in any case so there may be issues with shared read/write access to the same file.    The current Linux CIFS implementation does not do offline file caching which might be helpful in your slow link environment (AFS may be better than either WebDav or CIFS if that is the key issue) although it ought to be able to do cache across close (which would help your environment). 

  Since WebDav does not have an in-kernel filesystem implementation (at least in Linux) there are quite a few semantic holes/problems that you run into but they may not matter if all you are doing is simple file copy. 


  Steve French
  Senior Software Engineer
  Linux Technology Center - IBM Austin
  phone: 512-838-2294
  email: sfrench at-sign us dot ibm dot com 


        "Juan Carlos Schroeder" <jcsc at adinet.com.uy> 
        Sent by: linux-cifs-client-bounces+sfrench=us.ibm.com at lists.samba.org 
        08/17/2004 12:57 AM 
       To linux-cifs-client at lists.samba.org  
              cc  
              Subject [linux-cifs-client] WebDAV vs CIFS 

              

       



  I would like to know opinions about whether CIFS is better than WebDAV,
  specially having low bandwidth (eg: modem) connections.
  Does current CIFS implementations have agressive caché use?

  I've really not found comparisons between WebDAV and CIFS, so I ask here.

  Thanks,
  Juan Carlos



  _______________________________________________
  linux-cifs-client mailing list
  linux-cifs-client at lists.samba.org
  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-cifs-client




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  linux-cifs-client mailing list
  linux-cifs-client at lists.samba.org
  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-cifs-client

-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed