Linux - NetworkingThis forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I'm looking to strip down and lean out a particular filiesharing technology so that it runs fast as possible over ethernet. What technology is best? NFS, samba, AFS?
Bare in mind that security or other worries are not of any concern... only speed!
Originally posted by stefan_nicolau Between linux computers, nfs is by far the fastest, but it does not work with Windows.
I don't know about other network filesystems.
NFS is almost totally built into the kernel and super-optimized. The samba project is much more concerned with support for broken Microsoft standards, than speed. (They have done a great job at this) There is no reason to use Samba and broken Microsoft protocols instead of NFS, unless you have to.
Originally posted by Brian1 Run both servers. So if linux to linux is needed then use nfs on it. If going to or back from windows use samba.
Brian1
This is also what I do, but if you don't need samba, remove it to get better performance on NFS (more free ram and cpu time). Again, there is no way samba is faster than NFS.
Originally posted by Thaidog It's going to be OS X, SuSE 9.3 and, Windows. I have SFU for the Windows boxen... I'm just hopping that the client is worth a damn.
Considering it's made by Microsoft, i have doubts... Seriously though, it will be a lot slower, since I doubt it is integrated in the kernel.
Originally posted by stefan_nicolau Considering it's made by Microsoft, i have doubts... Seriously though, it will be a lot slower, since I doubt it is integrated in the kernel.
Well the Windows will be over the wireless lan anyway... so it'll be slow reguardless. I'm really more worried about the Linux/OSX connections.
Originally posted by Thaidog Well the Windows will be over the wireless lan anyway... so it'll be slow reguardless. I'm really more worried about the Linux/OSX connections.
I'm using nfs to connect both linux an osx to a fileserver over 100MBit ethernet. Throughput is around 11-11.5MB/s. It doesn't get faster than that. I'm sure there are nfs clients for windows out there.
Originally posted by demian I'm using nfs to connect both linux an osx to a fileserver over 100MBit ethernet. Throughput is around 11-11.5MB/s. It doesn't get faster than that. I'm sure there are nfs clients for windows out there.
There are.
If I remember correctly, SFU will allow you to mount an NFS share.
I have some problems with samba configuration so is it worth to go for NFS?
I will have to share printer also, as I understand there are separate setup for printer sharing - not via NFS. What should I use for linux printer sharing?
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.