Örn Einar Hansen wrote:
Þann Mánudagur 03 janúar 2005 04:51 skrifaði elefino:
I've added a second Linux box to my little network. It was stated in a previous thread in this list that SAMBA3 is basically just as good as NFS for file and printer sharing... so, with that advice (to somebody else) I'll stick with SAMBA (that I already use for sharing with the Windows box).
Whoever told you that Samba3 was as good as NFS for file and printer sharing, is about as wrong as he could ever be. There are real differences between a CIF share and a NFS share, and then you add the fact that Samba is basically an attempt to "emulate" the CIF share on Linux, and thus not as good as a true Windows box is.
Actually, I could be wrong, but from my understanding, it is an implementation of the CIFS standard. It's not emulating anything. And in fact is outperforms Windows servers. The other things about a "true" Windows box is that there is a limitation of 5 concurrent users that can connect on a Windows XP, NT WS, and 2000 Pro boxes. For Windows NT server, Windows 2000 server, and Windows Server 2003, there's a maximum of 5 concurrent users. Purchasing more CAL licenses for Windows server will allow more concurrent users. This artificial limitation does not exist on Linux. Lastly, SAMBA requires authentication, while NFS does not. You have to map SMB-style accounts to UNIX accounts, which can be cumbersome, but does provide a level of security. However, NFS requires the UID to match, but doesn't do any sort of authentication. This can be considered rather dangerous, as a hacker can find the UIDs and get access to the files.