Date: Tue, 18 Jun 96 12:38:02 +0200 From: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.EDU.AU Subject: Re: (SMB/Netware/NFS for DOS clients) (was BSD/OS ...) Message-ID: <9606181038.AA28251@wavehh.hanse.de> References: <199606171958.PAA26484@nda.nda.com> <199606180309.MAA22180@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
msmith@atrad.adelaide.EDU.AU (Michael Smith) wrote: >Kevin Lyda stands accused of saying: >> >> > True, however BSD is marketing themselves as an internet gateway, where >> > NFS is not as important. And now that FreeBSD has a Netware compatible >> > server available....the option to dump NFS (which I really dont want to use >> > on my Windows workstations anyways) is more than viable. The Netware >> > stuff (although not free) is a lot nicer (and faster) than NFS. >> >> how can you justify that? is netware an inherently faster protocol >> than nfs? or is this just an implementation issue? >Terry's covered most of the technical issues already. It's worth bearing >in mind that his bias is slightly more Netware-wards. >If you're looking for a fileserving solution for FreeBSD that will work well >with DOS and DOS-derived clients, either the commercial Netware server >pointed out by Jordan a while back or Samba are much better choices than >NFS, because the protocols they speak are more suited to the clients. >Personally I can't see any reason for using Netware over Samba in a small to >medium-sized environment; it's performance is very good and it's much >cheaper 8) (I expect the admin tools for the NetCon server are much better >however). I've not been able to get acceptable performance out of samba. Not more than 300-400 KB out of a 10Mbit-EThernet PCI 486 with 3com or WD ISA ethernet card (or 200 KB/sec out of small Sparcs with SunOS). My impression is that samba works fine, but is slow. Even PC-NFS on the same machines reach a higher bandwidth, not to speak of a Windows NT box serving NetBIOS (the on of our windows fraction fills 10 MB ethernet easily). CPU time consumption is not the problem with samba, the CPU is idle, the Ethernet unloaded, just the latency is too high (as it seems to me). If you think your samba servers are faster, could you please post some benchmark results, reading and writeing a file in - say - 8 KB block from a Win95 machine? Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de> - BSD User Group Hamburg BSD, Lisp and other programming info http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9606181038.AA28251>