From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Apr 18 02:26:16 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id CAA25433 for questions-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 02:26:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MediaCity.com (root@easy1.mediacity.com [205.216.172.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA25424 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 02:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from brian@localhost) by MediaCity.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id CAA09237 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 02:34:09 -0700 From: Brian Litzinger Message-Id: <199604180934.CAA09237@MediaCity.com> Subject: ummm.. nfs vs. samba To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 02:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: brian@MediaCity.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL11 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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. So whats the deal? -- Brian Litzinger Powered by FreeBSD http[s]://www.mpress.com