Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 23 Jan 1999 13:24:16 +1300 | From | Chris Wedgwood <> | Subject | Re: smbfs caching |
| |
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...
-cw
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |