Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3901 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] Duelling SAMBAs
- From: Örn Einar Hansen <orn.hansen@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:02:32 +0100
- Message-id: <200501031502.33044.orn.hansen@xxxxxxxxxx>
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.
If you have a samba server running, that means you probably have cups
running as well. You use direct connection between cups on the two linux
boxes, adding samba to the issue is basically a "boo boo". However, it
"might" be easier, if you are running samba and the printer on the same
machine as then you don't need to "edit" the cups configuration files, but I
suggest you get acquainted with those files, it's worth the 10-30 minutes it
takes. Mounting a samba share, on a secondary Linux box, means you bipass all
the user rights ... that's also a "boo boo".
If you intend to run Linux, then get the time to get acquainted with the
tools that it uses. Spend time learning how hypercomputer systems are put
up, and how they work ... it's worth the effort. You might end up using
Andrews File System, for performance and security sake ... but then, NFS is
simpler and quicker to setup. But Windows share in a Unix environment is
like shooting yourself in the foot, if you intend to use Linux/Unix as both
server and workstation. Samba is a simple "bridge" environment, to enable
Windows clients in a Linux environment ... and just "recently" to allow Linux
servers to exist in a trusted Windows domain. It's intended to "bridge" the
two worlds, it's not a "good" replacement ... that's just a no brainer.
My 2¢ worth.
> 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.
If you have a samba server running, that means you probably have cups
running as well. You use direct connection between cups on the two linux
boxes, adding samba to the issue is basically a "boo boo". However, it
"might" be easier, if you are running samba and the printer on the same
machine as then you don't need to "edit" the cups configuration files, but I
suggest you get acquainted with those files, it's worth the 10-30 minutes it
takes. Mounting a samba share, on a secondary Linux box, means you bipass all
the user rights ... that's also a "boo boo".
If you intend to run Linux, then get the time to get acquainted with the
tools that it uses. Spend time learning how hypercomputer systems are put
up, and how they work ... it's worth the effort. You might end up using
Andrews File System, for performance and security sake ... but then, NFS is
simpler and quicker to setup. But Windows share in a Unix environment is
like shooting yourself in the foot, if you intend to use Linux/Unix as both
server and workstation. Samba is a simple "bridge" environment, to enable
Windows clients in a Linux environment ... and just "recently" to allow Linux
servers to exist in a trusted Windows domain. It's intended to "bridge" the
two worlds, it's not a "good" replacement ... that's just a no brainer.
My 2¢ worth.
| < Previous | Next > |