[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Simon Waters wrote: > Mike Martin wrote: >> I found the opposite - nfs is far, far faster > > Yeap. > > The CIFS/SMB protocols are very chatty, and so have greater overhead > than NFS. > > They have tried to slow NFS down by bolting more on (such as TCP), but > it is still far faster, and they are bolting stuff on at a slower rate > than CIFS. > > If NFS is slower something is broken. > > It may be a case of NFS being faster because it does less, but if it > does enough that isn't usually a problem. What I found to be very helpful was combining NIS and NFS, allowed authentication over the LAN as well as having /home mounted from the server without permission issues.. 2p deposited... -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html