[Gllug] Combining SMB and NFS - was Embedded Linux & 1Gbps?
Matthew King
matthew.king at monnsta.net
Wed Oct 17 10:53:33 UTC 2007
DL Neil <GLLUG at getaroundtoit.co.uk> writes:
> I read that NFS is more efficient/faster than using Samba - from Linux.
NFS sucks. Unfortunately it just happens to suck less than anything else
I've used.
> However having Windows machines on the same home network I have only
> set up Samba shares on Linux machines (and native Windows shares on
> the Windows systems - running MS-only apps). Then I discovered that
> some Linux applications (GIMP ? Open Office) don't like to edit files
> across the network/protocol. Oops!
>
> Should I set up the network hosted shared areas to be both SMB and NFS
> spaces? Can one do that? How does this improve things/solve such
> problems?
NFS and SMB can operate on the same filesystem without even being aware
of each others' existence. To an application an NFS mount might well be
a (slow) local device.
> What's the rationale and usual solution to this, please?
Simply that NFS, despite its faults, is better suited to unix-based
hosts than SMB.
On which note - is anyone aware of anything which is better than NFS,
for varying values of 'better'?
Matthew
--
I must take issue with the term "a mere child", for it has been my
invariable experience that the company of a mere child is infinitely
preferable to that of a mere adult.
-- Fran Lebowitz
--
Gllug mailing list - Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
More information about the GLLUG
mailing list