[Samba] Re: Samba vs. Windows : significant difference intimestamp
dkrnic at lycos.com
Thu Aug 14 08:49:35 GMT 2003
>> > > Fine. Use reiserfs and don't worry about ctime.
>> > Why? Does reiserfs handle ctime in a different
>> > way than other linux filesystems?
>> It's not supposed to given the same instructions
>> from clients but it appears to because perhaps it
>> elicits different kind of response from Office.
>> Maybe Office behaves different when the samba
>> server's fs is reiser.
> Quite interesting. Can you describe any particular
> case of a different behavior (samba + ext2 vs. samba
> + reiser)? I really wonder where the roots of such
> differences are.
Sorry to disappoint you, Honza. After I evaluated the
major linux fs's I selected reiserfs and used it ever
It just happens that the owner of this thread described
a behaviour of Office software which I couldn't confirm
on my own system. Since the only difference was the
kind of fs I assumed that perhaps Office treats
reiserfs slightly different than ext3.
I may be wrong because some other difference in samba
setup might as well be the cause but it's only a
working hypothesis. It's not as though I said the moon
is gonna fall from the sky tonight. Just that Office
leaving mtime alone on my system instead of updating
it, as it does on other people's system, might, just
might, be because when Windows/Office negotiates what
it can/can't do with a remote fs the checklist is in
some small detail different for samba/reiserfs.
>> In any case, reiserfs is superior to or at least as
>> good as any other Linux fs.
> I do not discuss quality of the filesystems. I
> thought that there were no differences in the way of
> using access times between all linux native
> filesystems (ext2/3, reiser, xfs, jfs).
There shouldn't be any differences. The difference pops
up when a 3d party software like Office joins the game.
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
More information about the samba