Re: smbfs vs nfs

Paul Flinders (ptf@datasci.co.uk)
Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:28:25 -0000

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Duncan Hill: "Kernel Compile problem"
Previous message: Robert Nichols: "Re: RFC: Modified FAT filesystem driver?"
Maybe in reply to: steve farrell: "smbfs vs nfs"
Next in thread: Matthias Urlichs: "Re: smbfs vs nfs"

> From: steve farrell <sfarrell@healthquiz.com>
> has anyone tried using smbfs in place of nfs and done a performance
> comparison? any thoughts on this being a usable possibility?

The main problem would probably be that smbfs doesn't support Unix
permissions or symbolic links.

Next message: Duncan Hill: "Kernel Compile problem"
Previous message: Robert Nichols: "Re: RFC: Modified FAT filesystem driver?"
Maybe in reply to: steve farrell: "smbfs vs nfs"
Next in thread: Matthias Urlichs: "Re: smbfs vs nfs"