cifs vs. nfs "chattiness"
jpeach at samba.org
Sat Apr 14 20:56:47 GMT 2007
On 13/04/2007, at 3:25 PM, Steve French wrote:
> There is an oft-repeated comment that cifs is "chattier" than nfs
Whatever "chatty" means. I can think of a few different interpretations.
> Any idea why such a perception?
> I assume it has to do with one or more of the following:
> 1) NFSv3 does not send open/close (which is a good news ... bad news
> story for nfs users of course - there is a good reason that NFSv4
> finally added an open call) while cifs does
> 2) Windows Explorer does lots of ineffecient repeated requests (which
> the MS cifs client dutifully send over the wire)
> 3) CIFS Unix Extensions require three to four operations for
> create/mkdir while NFS presumably can do it in one fewer).
4) browse traffic
James Peach | jpeach at samba.org
More information about the samba-technical