smb clients and performance

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

again, this question i could answer: i have answered similar questions
before.  until such time as i become frustrated because the question goes
unanswered and i _have_ to answer, i will be available at consultancy
rates to corporate organisations.  this is so that i don't end up taking 
too much of my time on samba digest, and so i can pay my mortgage.

luke


On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Steve Jones wrote:

> 
> On Sep 29,  1:45pm, Darrin M. Gorski wrote:
>  Subject: Re: smb clients and performance
> 
> > MS Cleints will broadcast even if there is no samba server (for example,
> > you use NT instead). That's the default method of resolving names. It is
> > not, however, all that taxing on the network. We have over 800 MS clients
> > on 25 subnets, and we can use Samba, AND NT servers (not to mention
> > PCNFS) with no throughput problems.
> 
> 
> You say that this is the default behaviour.  But can this
> be configured otherwise?  If I understand correctly,
> the plan is to abandon netBEUI in order to forego the
> broadcasting of these clients.  In other words, do these
> clients *always* behave this way under NT or is there another
> mode of operation?
> 
> This raises another question or two (please excluse
> my ignorance).  Do MS clients such as winfile the NET
> commands in the DOS box always use netBEUI for netBIOS or
> can they use TCP/IP instead (I have a limited understanding
> of protocols used by MS)?  My understanding has been that
> netBIOS can sit atop either netBEUI *or* TCP/IP.  But, even
> if this is true, will the MS clients work that way.  More
> to the point, will they cease to continually broadcast.
> 
> I probably *could* have posed the above questions more
> awkwardly, I just didn't try hard enough!  ;^).
> 
> thanks,
> steve
> 

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl at switchboard.net)
Web site under construction  (http://mailhost.cb1.com/~lkcl)
"Confront difficulties while they are still easy"