Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 13 Sep 1996 22:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Doug White <dwhite@gdi.uoregon.edu>
To:        Nik Clayton <nik@blueberry.co.uk>
Cc:        questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: SAMBA performance?
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSI.3.94.960913223348.615T-100000@gdi.uoregon.edu>
In-Reply-To: <199609130922.KAA15299@guava.blueberry.co.uk>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Nik Clayton wrote:

> 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.

>From what it sounds like from this list, samba is *excellent*.  Very high
performace as compared to NFS.  Everyone who's said something about
samba's had something good to say.  

> 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?

Ehhh?  You can't run Samba and Win95 at the same time.

> The W95 machine will be running MS Access, and probably MS J++ as well, so
> I anticipate it being fairly IO bound.

Go SCSI, then.

Doug White                              | University of Oregon  
Internet:  dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu    | Residence Networking Assistant
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite    | Computer Science Major




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.94.960913223348.615T-100000>