[Gllug] Combining SMB and NFS - was Embedded Linux & 1Gbps?

[Matthew King]

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