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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.94.960913223348.615T-100000>