[Samba] samba (vs. nfs) in all unix environment

Nils Kalchhauser nils.kalchhauser at vollwerbung.at
Thu Nov 13 11:28:25 GMT 2003


Hi!

I have had a short look at that comparison document and have to say that
it sounds very biased. Additionally, it is not really applicable to the
original problem, because it does not consider an all Unix environment as
given. (it states for example that for CIFS you don't have to install
anything on the client PCs)

just my 2 cents..


greetings,
Nils



"rruegner" <robowarp at gmx.de> wrote (Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:40:28 +0100):
> Hi, i can only answer to one thing,
> if no windows is involved you havent to use smb at all, for mount files
> via network.
> But i remember that i had to use it with a Linux Coldfusion setup, cause
> the cold fusion server
> was not able to handle nfs shares.
> I think i depends deep in what you want to do with your machines to find
> out what protokoll may the best for you.
> For courier nfs should be enough, but look here
>  http://www.facetcorp.com/competition_nfs_cifs_comparison.html for more
>  info
> Let us know your results
> Best Regards
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mariano Absatz" <samba at lists.com.ar>
> To: "Samba Mailing List" <samba at lists.samba.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 6:28 PM
> Subject: [Samba] samba (vs. nfs) in all unix environment
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm sorry if this is a very FAQ, I've been googling around and
> > searchin' the list archive and I'll gladly accept RTFMs with somehow
> > precise URLs(including URLs to the list archives).
> >
> > I'm on the drawing board (no equipment yet) for a server farm that
> > will have a SteelEye linux cluster behind to provide (among other
> > services) with networked file access.
> >
> > The setup is all-linux (likely RHEL 2.1, less likely RHL 8.0, almost
> > unlikely RHEL 3.0), that is, there will not be no windows clients nor
> > servers.
> >
> > The shared filesystems will be used by a Courier-IMAP server and an
> > Apache httpd 2.0 server.
> >
> > I always did these kind of stuff with NFS and I know it would work,
> > but recently someone told me maybe SMB would yeld better performance
> > and resilience in case of a cluster node failing over to the other
> > one...
> >
> > The point is, I don't know anything about this, and searching the web,
> > newsgroups and mailing list archives didn't bring much light into it.
> >
> > I asked in the Courier-IMAP mailing list and the only answer (from
> > Courier-IMAP developer) only stated that he thought samba wouldn't be
> > able to correctly handle ":" charaters in filenames (which
> > Courier-IMAP uses).
> >
> > I did a really quick check with stock samba 2.2.7 included in RedHat
> > 7.3 and I can create a file named "hi:bye" and I can read it thru an
> > smb mount... buy if I list the directory containing it, it appears as
> > "HIBYE~7C", so it's obviously doing some mangling in there.
> >
> > First question is, can I disable all name mangling on a share that
> > will be accessed only by unix machines? or is there any mounting
> > options that allows me to do this?
> >
> > Second (and most important) question is... will SMB provide better
> > performance or more resilience in an all-linux environment? or should
> > I stick with NFS?
> >
> > TIA.
> >
> > --
> > Mariano Absatz
> > El Baby
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Double your drive space - delete Windows!
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> > instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
> >
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
> 



More information about the samba mailing list