SAMBA vs NFS

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by paow » Fri, 26 May 1995 04:00:00



samba can treat a linux directory as a local logical driver under
windows, and vice versa. NFS can also do the same thing, then what's
the difference?

BTW, SOSS can act as a NFS server. It support ethernet card, is it
support slip also (using null modem cable linking 2 PC)?

 
 
 

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by Ecole Centrale d'Electroniq » Sat, 27 May 1995 04:00:00



Quote:

>samba can treat a linux directory as a local logical driver under
>windows, and vice versa. NFS can also do the same thing, then what's
>the difference?

The main difference is SAMBA can be used with Windows, Windows 95 or
Windows NT without adding PC-NFS or any NFS Client...

 
 
 

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by Paul Ba » Tue, 30 May 1995 04:00:00



>samba can treat a linux directory as a local logical driver under
>windows, and vice versa. NFS can also do the same thing, then what's
>the difference?

The difference is in *how* they provide that drive letter to you from the
server's viewpoint. NFS can be quite slow on writes due to the stateless
nature of its design. Every write must be acknowledged before the next one
can procede. Samba handles writes much faster, at least here on my LAN.

Also, for most non-UNIX OS's, NFS client requestors are an extra cost add-on.
There are free Lan Manager client requestors on ftp.microsoft.com for DOS
and OS/2 that work with Samba.

Windows For Workgroups, Windows 95, Windows NT and OS/2 Warp Connect have
built-in client requestors that work with Samba right out of the box.

--
Paul Bash  

 
 
 

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by Doug McInty » Tue, 30 May 1995 04:00:00



>Also, for most non-UNIX OS's, NFS client requestors are an extra cost add-on.
>There are free Lan Manager client requestors on ftp.microsoft.com for DOS
>and OS/2 that work with Samba.

Okay, how do I do lan manager clients to Samba? I even have the latest lan
manager clients from the Win NT 3.5 Server disc. How do I configure
them to do NetBEUI over TCP/IP with a samba server on Linux? I can
connect just fine to it using NT, I can connect to it from work across
a PPP network link from WfW3.11. But when trying to bring up lan manager
clients, I first turn of DHCP, edit hosts and lmhosts and something.ini
to configure in IP addresses, but yet I get errors and hangs, and reports
of out of memory (even with 523k free, and full emm & himem!).

(Also, for what its worth, how do I get browsing to work from Samba?
I think my NT machine found it once, but never again).
--


Internet services and dialups.

 
 
 

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by David Simmo » Tue, 30 May 1995 04:00:00



>Also, for most non-UNIX OS's, NFS client requestors are an extra cost add-on.
>There are free Lan Manager client requestors on ftp.microsoft.com for DOS
>and OS/2 that work with Samba.

There is a shareware NFS client for Dos/Windows called "XFS" that
seems to work pretty well.  Samba is probably a more elegant solution,
though, for DOSish OSs.

David

--

Mississippi State University Electrical and Computer Engineering
Visit my home page!  http://www.ee.msstate.edu/~simmons

 
 
 

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by tmas.. » Tue, 30 May 1995 04:00:00


Quote:>Also, for most non-UNIX OS's, NFS client requestors are an extra cost add-on.
>There are free Lan Manager client requestors on ftp.microsoft.com for DOS
>and OS/2 that work with Samba.

>Windows For Workgroups, Windows 95, Windows NT and OS/2 Warp Connect have
>built-in client requestors that work with Samba right out of the box.

Does this mean that SAMBA uses NetBIOS (or NetBEUI) instead of TCP/IP?

Tim

 
 
 

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by Joost Helbe » Wed, 31 May 1995 04:00:00


   samba can treat a linux directory as a local logical driver under
   windows, and vice versa. NFS can also do the same thing, then what's
   the difference?

A train and a tram both get you somewhere, what's the difference?
--
Joost Helberg

 
 
 

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by Leslie Mikese » Wed, 31 May 1995 04:00:00




>   samba can treat a linux directory as a local logical driver under
>   windows, and vice versa. NFS can also do the same thing, then what's
>   the difference?

>A train and a tram both get you somewhere, what's the difference?

From a practical standpoint, the client software for samba is
cheaper, faster, and takes less PC memory, depending on which
version you use (Window-for-WorkGroups w/32-bit TCP recommended),
and it can be used for peer-to-peer among WFW/NT connections as
well as connecting to the unix hosts.  And it handles file and
record locking the way PC software expects.

Les Mikesell

 
 
 

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by Leslie Mikese » Wed, 31 May 1995 04:00:00




>One important question was missed during the discussion about SAMBA vs NFS:
>Can we freely  make our choice, or there are some technical limitations or
>disadvantegous compromises in certain cases? I have a feeling, that in a
>typical heterogenous institution/university network where UNIX, Linux and Netware
>servers are connected to PC-s running DOS and Windows, there are only very few
>possibilities. One possibility is the combination of PC-TCP Idrive (an NFS client)
>and Novell's IPX+NETX using the ODI shell. The "price" of this solution is a huge
>amount of memory resident stuff.

>My question is the following: is the SAMBA stuff compatible (i.e. can be
>combined) with these things, or provides only file and printing service from
>the Linux host, leving the UNIX and Netware hosts inaccessible from the PC clients?

You can mix and match if you want, but the real advantage of samba is that
it puts the burden of diversity on the unix host(s) which can handle
it easily rather than requiring extra protocols to be loaded on every
PC.  That is, you can run Windows-for-WorkGroups with the 32-bit TCP
stack as your only protocol if you want, taking up almost no low
memory on the PC, and connect to unix (via samba), WFW, NT, or LanMan
shared resources, adding the Netware support only if you need it.
Samba should run on most unix hosts, and can be used along with NFS
if you have a combination of clients.

Les Mikesell

 
 
 

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by Graham Worle » Wed, 31 May 1995 04:00:00


I've run Samba for a number of months now. It is an excellent piece of work
that is extremely reliable. There's also the point that it's more secure due to
the UNIX end doing the authentication and not the client.
 
 
 

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by Istvan Cser » Wed, 31 May 1995 04:00:00


: I've run Samba for a number of months now. It is an excellent piece of work
: that is extremely reliable. There's also the point that it's more secure due to
: the UNIX end doing the authentication and not the client.
One important question was missed during the discussion about SAMBA vs NFS:
Can we freely  make our choice, or there are some technical limitations or
disadvantegous compromises in certain cases? I have a feeling, that in a
typical heterogenous institution/university network where UNIX, Linux and Netware
servers are connected to PC-s running DOS and Windows, there are only very few
possibilities. One possibility is the combination of PC-TCP Idrive (an NFS client)
and Novell's IPX+NETX using the ODI shell. The "price" of this solution is a huge
amount of memory resident stuff.

My question is the following: is the SAMBA stuff compatible (i.e. can be
combined) with these things, or provides only file and printing service from
the Linux host, leving the UNIX and Netware hosts inaccessible from the PC clients?

Istvan
--------------------       ___  _                  _    _  
Istvan Cserny             / _ \| |_ ___  _ __ ___ | | _(_)  MTA ATOMKI

Tel: +36 52 431-722/1231 |  _  | || (_) | | | | | |   <| |  H-4001 Debrecen
FAX: +36 52 416-181      |_| |_|\__\___/|_| |_| |_|_|\_\_|  Hungary

 
 
 

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by Kelly Volans » Sat, 03 Jun 1995 04:00:00



>Does this mean that SAMBA uses NetBIOS (or NetBEUI) instead of TCP/IP?

SAMBA uses NETBIOS over TCPIP.  Also, since I run both, a samba export is
clocked much faster than an NFS export in raw speed.  Granted this might
change if I had access to a "real" NFS client, but I personally really
like samba.  I also feel it's easier to setup than an NFS export.

Soon I'll have a chance to try samba as a real alternative to Netware on a
10 station LAN.  I'll keep everyone posted...

K-

 
 
 

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by Doug DeJul » Sun, 04 Jun 1995 04:00:00



>>Windows For Workgroups, Windows 95, Windows NT and OS/2 Warp Connect have
>>built-in client requestors that work with Samba right out of the box.

>Does this mean that SAMBA uses NetBIOS (or NetBEUI) instead of TCP/IP?

As I understand it, SAMBA uses NetBEUI *over* TCP/IP.  You've got to
have TCP/IP on all your peers, or a Windows NT (or similar) box
gatewaying it to NetBEUI.

This is no problem for Windows NT and Windows 95, as these both come
NetBEUI-over-TCP/IP capable.  For Windows for Workgroups, if you
install Wolverine, this starts to work, but not with SLIP/PPP
(ie. real network card only).  I'm not familiar enough with OS/2 to
comment on it.
--



 
 
 

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by Dave Hi » Sun, 04 Jun 1995 04:00:00





>: NFS can be quite slow on writes due to the stateless nature
>: of its design.
...
>    You say that NFS has a stateless design.  I'm wondering whether it may
>have been designed that way to provide reliable behavior in the face of
>bad networks.  If that is so, I'd be very interested to know how well
>SAMBA works in the face of network failure.

The stateless design of NFS was motivated largely by the ease of
handling client and server crashes.

This is not to say that stateful designs are inherently incapable of
handling client and server failure -- it's just more work.

I'd also be interested in knowing how SAMBA deals with a client/server
disconnect (either from client or server crash, or for another
reason).


Network Appliance       (415) 428-5106

 
 
 

SAMBA vs NFS

Post by Jeff De » Sun, 04 Jun 1995 04:00:00



: >samba can treat a linux directory as a local logical driver under
: >windows, and vice versa. NFS can also do the same thing, then what's
: >the difference?
: >

: The difference is in *how* they provide that drive letter to you from the
: server's viewpoint. NFS can be quite slow on writes due to the stateless
: nature of its design. Every write must be acknowledged before the next one
: can procede. Samba handles writes much faster, at least here on my LAN.

    Does the non-stateless nature of SAMBA have any detrimental consequences?
I've only used NFS in a network where I had any influence on the administration
once, and I found that NFS was extremely reliable in the face of lost
network connections.  I recall one instance where machine A had /usr mounted
from machine B via NFS.  We powered down machine B, carried it across the
building, plugged it into the network and powered it up.  Machine A recovered
it's connection and ran without a hitch.

    When I consider how often I've lost connections to Netware servers, and
what those lost connections did to my applicaton software, I really begin
to appreciate NFS.

    You say that NFS has a stateless design.  I'm wondering whether it may
have been designed that way to provide reliable behavior in the face of
bad networks.  If that is so, I'd be very interested to know how well
SAMBA works in the face of network failure.

--
,sig under construction

 
 
 

1. Samba vs NFS (Re: When is Samba faster than NT)


How about an HTTP/ICP based filesystem?  Win98 sorta has this already, and
there are a few other user-level implementations as well.  Or is this what
you're asking?

--
David Lee Lambert   MHm 16x20
E-mail: lmert at c3net.net (temporarily)

I am a hacker,  part of an open society sworn to create and study,
but never destroy.  We know the truth about operating systems.  In the
end,  there can be only one.  May it be GNU/Linux, the OpenSource OS.  

2. apl_linux_ddos

3. Samba vs. NFS

4. C compiler !!!

5. Samba vs NFS

6. Printing to networked printer in distributed env

7. samba vs. nfs

8. Jaz Drive "tools disk" --- SCSI command 04h

9. Samba vs. NFS

10. Solaris: Samba vs NFS

11. samba vs NFS (sol9)

12. Samba vs. NFS

13. NFS vs SAMBA vs ??: what's the right approach?