Messages in this thread | | | From | (Matthias Urlichs) | Subject | Re: smbfs vs nfs | Date | 2 Dec 1996 20:43:18 +0100 |
| |
In linux.dev.kernel, article <199612021328.NAA04716@mailhost.datasci.co.uk>, "Paul Flinders" <ptf@datasci.co.uk> writes: > > > From: steve farrell <sfarrell@healthquiz.com> > > has anyone tried using smbfs in place of nfs and done a performance > > comparison? any thoughts on this being a usable possibility? > > The main problem would probably be that smbfs doesn't support Unix > permissions or symbolic links. > ... yet.
According to the author, he already has extensions which do that. Look for them early next year; he wants to coordinate the stuff with the people who actually wrote the SMB protocol...
-- Be happy. It is a way of being wise. -- Matthias Urlichs \ noris network GmbH / Xlink-POP Nürnberg Schleiermacherstraße 12 \ Linux+Internet / EMail: urlichs@noris.de 90491 Nürnberg (Germany) \ Consulting+Programming+Networking+etc'ing PGP: 1024/4F578875 1B 89 E2 1C 43 EA 80 44 15 D2 29 CF C6 C7 E0 DE Click <A HREF="http://info.noris.de/~smurf/finger">here</A>. 42
| |