On Sunday 28 December 2008 04:55, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 1:16 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
No. But you really suck. Noticed the distinct lack of a smiley. No? heck never mind.
Bah...and you think I care for your remarks? :)
Explain how exactly is SAMBA/CIFS better than a M$ share.
Stability....
ooh...my gawd...stability... please backup your statements with proofs.
place and found that M$XP (dont remember if it was sp2) share of a disk block on a M$2003 server was much slower than a simliar share on a linux box. It could well be because of crappy AV on the doze boxen, but you might as well burn the machine without AV.
agreed.
Prima face linux would beat doze because linux has superior file / block handling and network infrastructure apart from the AV overhead (now dont get started on numbers etc unless u wanna pay me to do the study).
Linux supports various file systems. It wouldn't make sense to say linux has a superior file / block handling since not all Linux file systems are created equal :P
This is about ANY linux fs v/s doze ntfs and fat fs under a network file sharing protocol. We are not comparing one linux fs with some other linux fs.
Similiar informal tests with samba and nfs (both on linux boxes) found nfs to win. Again i had not tweaked samba in any way (and i havent botherd to check for tweaks either), but increased the nfs block size to 64k (or some such) for even better performance.
Yeah yeah Linux beats crap out of Windows. Whose saying otherwise? Though compatibility is an issue infact heres a bit, you can use NFS on Windows boxes with some Unix utilities for windows software. I forget its name.
Tried it during this test. preliminary results were horrible. With the nfs shares not showing up many a times and almost always disappearing after a doze reboot.