From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Sep 13 22:36:15 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA05122 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 22:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gdi.uoregon.edu (cisco-ts8-line7.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.71]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA05110 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 22:36:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost) by gdi.uoregon.edu (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA00725; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 22:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 22:35:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White Reply-To: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu To: Nik Clayton cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SAMBA performance? In-Reply-To: <199609130922.KAA15299@guava.blueberry.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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