Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 04 Dec 1996 13:23:49 -0500 | From | Gary Schrock <> | Subject | Re: smbfs vs nfs |
| |
At 10:47 AM 12/4/96 -0000, you wrote: > >In article <199612020509.XAA22411@phaedrus.uchicago.edu> you wrote: > >: has anyone tried using smbfs in place of nfs and done a performance >: comparison? any thoughts on this being a usable possibility?
I don't have an NFS server convenient to do comparisons, but I honestly can't see how it could be slower than smbfs is, at least here on my setup. For doing reads I'm lucky if I get 6 or 7k/s, and writes are more along the line of 1 or 2k/s, and writing anything large tends to completely screw over the smbfs connection (large being 20+ megs, size varies on what screws it up). And the only way I've been able to figure out how to fix the screwed up connection is to reboot the linux box. Considering that the machines the linux box is talking with are on the same local subnet, these performance numbers are dismal, and certainly fall below the performance of win95 box to win95 box transfers.
Gary Schrock root@eyelab.msu.edu
|  |