[mdlug] Linux server, mixed clients

[-]

Another option is a program called FreeNAS, based on freeBSD.  Its only need
32meg to install.   it will accept FTP, NFS, AFP, CIFS (samba), rsync.
Takes about 20 min's to setup.  I have ran into a few old I/F cards that
have problems with FreeBSD so just fyi.


Some testing I have done in the past on comparing pre (3.x samba) to NFS I
have found if you are connecting Unix to Unix then NFS connection speed
tests faster with large files (500meg or larger) for my testing.   For
windos then samba for sure.    If running 3.x samba then its a toss up
between NFS and Samba for large files.   3.x Samba seems a little faster
transfer speeds all around.   From what I have read the 3.x samba uses a
smarter connection setup.  Don't know for sure.

- Pat

On 10/10/07, Michael ORourke <mrorourke at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Lug nuts,
>
> I have a small site in which I added a Linux server and set up simple
> Samba
> file sharing.  When I set it up a few years ago, the only clients on the
> network were Win 2k and XP Pro.  So I just shared out a couple of
> directories via Samba and mapped them to the workstations.  Pretty basic
> setup.  Now I have a need to add a few more workstations to the network,
> and
> since the hardware is older recycled equipment, I have loaded Ubuntu on
> them.  Here's my question...  I would like to set them up with access to
> the
> same shares as the Windows workstations on the server, but not sure the
> best
> way to go about that.  Should I export them via NFS, or use samba on the
> Linux client to attach to the samba shares on the Linux server?  Is there
> a
> downside of doing either?  I'm curious what other folks have done.
>
> -Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> mdlug mailing list
> mdlug at mdlug.org
> http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mdlug.org/pipermail/mdlug/attachments/20071016/ab88d852/attachment-0001.html>