Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 23 Jan 1999 05:44:48 +0000 | From | Tom Eastep <> | Subject | Re: smbfs caching |
| |
Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 04:36:46PM -0500, Jim Nance wrote: > > > Would anyone like to comment on this? > > I don't know why you expected smbfs to be faster than NFS... NFS is a > simplistic design, SMB is not (not even close). > > We use both here... NFS is pretty good most of the time, even over > slow wan links. SMB is pretty hideous on circuits less than 256K or > so, and some operations (like expanding the network neighborhood tree > under Win98 and damned painful -- even over a lan). > > For copying large files (100MB+) about, both seem on a par with each > other...
However, if you are using a Microsoft client to copy something large over a slow WAN via SMB, you can kiss off using your machine for anything else until the copy completes (I've observed this using Win95, Win NT and Win98). If you are using a Samba client, you can at least continue to use your machine of other work...
-Tom -- Tom Eastep Compaq Computer Corporation Enterprise Computing Group Tandem Division tom.eastep@compaq.combegin:vcard n:Eastep;Tom x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Compaq Computer Corporation;Tandem Division adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:tom.eastep@compaq.com x-mozilla-cpt:;-6528 fn:Tom Eastep end:vcard
| |