On Monday 03 January 2005 09:02, 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.
Well, they didn't tell "me" explicitly. It was in a SAMBA-related or NFS-related thread on this list several months ago. Somebody made the statement that they'd used both SAMBA and NFS and that SAMBA was at least as fast, if not faster, for file transfers, and worked as well in some aspectsthat were important to that person at the time -- so if one is going to be using SAMBA on a network, why bother also running NFS? When I saw that, I stopped worrying about setting up NFS, since I'd be using SAMBA anyway, and why add additional hassle and complication? You are probably correct that NFS is more proper to use between two Linux boxes, but if I'm already going to have SAMBA running, what do I gain by having NFS running as well? NFS is simpler and quicker to set up than "Andrews File System", which I'd never heard of before you wrote the name, but I already performed the steps that I read in NFS HowTo and failed to get it going (after failing to get it going using just YaST). I could now proceed to bang my head on SAMBA until it works again, and stop with a working network, or I could complete that and then bang my head for a further many days and maybe or maybe not figure out where I'm being stupid about NFS, but all I'd have is a sore head and more blood running into my eyes. I don't see that I'd have additional functionality. I'm also not clear on what you are implying about reduced security if I use SAMBA, or how I would gain security by adding NFS in a two-box network where I must run SAMBA anyway. Oh, I've heard all the arguments about why don't I just be a real man and switch totally to Linux. <grin> Unfortunately in that respect, what I am is a married man. Therefore, if the wife wants Windows, she gets Windows. She has an argument that trumps all "use Linux, it's better" arguments. Her argument for using Windows is: nobody writes tax software for Linux, and the tax software does not work via Wine (some validation thing). Therefore, our house will have at least one Windows box for the forseeable future, and I must accommodate it. Also, her work uses ACT! and she likes to sync at home occasionally. Furthermore, if she or I bring home a laptop from work, it's gonna be Windows. I think that it is a minor triumph that I have persuaded her to boot in Linux for everyday tasks (mail, browsing, OpenOffice stuff, etc.) and only boot Windows for three programs that are Win-only. Three years ago, she would not have considered it. Thanks for your comments, and any more detail you can add that would help me see the relative advantages of each approach (SAMBA alone, NFS with SAMBA, NFS alone). Kevin