[Samba] samba on nfs server or client

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 08:29, Venkata wrote:
> Hello all. I hope this question is not too dumb, but
> I thought I'd ask it anyway since I'd like to get the
> opinion of the samba gurus out there. My question is
> this:
> 
> -- is it better to run smbd and nmbd on a server that
> acts as a NFS server and has disks directly attached to it
> or is it better to run samba on a seperate machine that
> acts as a client to the NFS server?
> 
> In other words, in the first scenario, there is no "middleman"
> server sitting between the NFS server and the windows client.
> Are there any advantages / disadvantages to this approach?
> It seems that this would be faster than having a dedicated
> samba server that acts as an NFS client since NFS calls are
> removed from the picture. Any insight on this is appreciated
> as I am purely speculating. Thanks.

No, it will always be both slower and more dangerous to run Samba on an
NFS client.  Slower, because the traffic must traverse 2 network links. 
More dangerous, because Samba cannot detect NFS access to the files it
shares, and therefore Oplocks break.

Always run just one file-server, sharing out multiple protocols (if
possible).

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                 abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team  abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College   abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org     http://build.samba.org     http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20040324/3571454d/attachment.bin