From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Apr 18 05:54:36 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id FAA02721 for questions-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 05:54:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from itsdsv1.enc.edu (itsdsv1.enc.edu [199.93.252.241]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA02714 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 05:54:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.enc.edu (dingo.enc.edu [199.93.252.229]) by itsdsv1.enc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA10215; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:54:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:59:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Owens Reply-To: Charles Owens To: questions list FreeBSD cc: Brian Litzinger Subject: Re: ummm.. nfs vs. samba Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Brian Litzinger wrote: { I remember reading on this forum a number of times that SAMBA was much faster at serving files to MS Windows type machines than NFS. Did I remember that backwards? I converted a client machine of mine from PCDOS 6.3/MS Windows3.1/NFS (or XFS) to MSDOS 6.22/MS Windows95/SAMBA. And I can say that for the exact same equipment trying to transfer the same 700MBs of data, the latter setup is astronomically slower than the former. } Hmmmm... interesting. From my WfW 3.11 box I get roughly 320 kb/s for both reads and writes with Samba, while when I used the DOS version of XFS I'd get about 150 kb/s reads and 60 kb/s writes. The WfW version of XFS that works with MSTCP32 got slightly better performance. Based on this, I've been very happy with Samba. What performance are you seeing? --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Owens Email: owensc@enc.edu "I read somewhere to learn is to Information Technology Services remember... and I've learned that Eastern Nazarene College we've all forgot..." - King's X -------------------------------------------------------------------------