Re: samba plus nfs, or only samba - 3 pcs
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:06:19PM -0500, Jason M. Harvey wrote:
> i have my debian box acting as a server and a gateway for my lan. i had
> a "multi-booting" pc on the lan, which i just upgraded the hardware on.
> this will be my son's windoze box. right now i am running samba between
> the two. now i can use his old box as a debian workstation. i am
> thinking of running nfs between the server and workstation, but will
> still need samba for the windoze box.
>
> any suggestions on whether i should ran both samba and nfs, or should i
> stick with samba alone since i'm already using it? performance?
Use NFS, it will be faster and will work better (little things like
symlinks don't work with smbfs). Just make sure that your UIDs are the
same on both machines (not an issue if you use NIS or LDAP or some such
for authentication). It's possible that you could end up with file
locking issues, but it doesn't sound like you're likely to be using the
same files from more than one place at a time.
In the future, smbfs (or rather cifs) may be a little more practical for
UNIX<->UNIX connections, since extensions for better UNIX support are
being implemented in both Samba's and the kernel's development branches.
That might make life easier, especially in places where the relatively
weak security of NFS is an issue.
--
Michael Heironimus
Reply to: