From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Sep 13 02:25:03 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA08158 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 02:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from guava.blueberry.co.uk ([194.70.52.51]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA08147 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 02:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nik@localhost) by guava.blueberry.co.uk (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA15299 for questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:22:05 +0100 (BST) From: Nik Clayton Message-Id: <199609130922.KAA15299@guava.blueberry.co.uk> Subject: SAMBA performance? To: questions@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:22:04 +0100 (BST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8a] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk How do, Anyone using SAMBA got any comments about it's performance? I'm about to build a W95 box that will need roughly 3GB HD. Due to market forces, it works out cheaper to buy a 4.4GB HD and leave a quarter of it unused. Is SAMBA's performance good enough that I could put the 4.4GB on one of my FreeBSD servers, use 1GB for Unix related bits and pieces, and the other 3GB for W95? The W95 machine will be running MS Access, and probably MS J++ as well, so I anticipate it being fairly IO bound. N -- --+=[ Blueberry Hill Blueberry Design ]=+-- --+=[ http://www.blueberry.co.uk/ 1/9 Chelsea Harbour Design Centre, ]=+-- --+=[ WebMaster@blueberry.co.uk London, England, SW10 0XE ]=+-- --+=[ See me - feel me - touch me - heal me ]=+--