[lkml]   [1996]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: smbfs vs nfs

At 10:47 AM 12/4/96 -0000, you wrote:
>In article <> 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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.021 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site