[CentOS] SAMBA vs NFS

Craig White craigwhite at azapple.com
Thu Nov 26 19:28:37 UTC 2009


On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 09:40 -0800, Keith Keller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:14:56AM -0700, Craig White wrote:
> > 
> > NFS mounts for Linux users
> > Samba for Windows users
> > Netatalk for Macintosh clients
> 
> Wow, I didn't even know netatalk was still around!  How does it compare
> to SMB on OS X clients?  I'm thinking that, unless you have a pressing
> need for some particular netatalk option, that using Samba for those
> clients as well simplifies admin on the backend.  IOW, what are the
> scenarios where netatalk is either strongly preferred or required over
> Samba?
----
I don't recall timing checks between AFP (netatalk) and SMB (samba) but
I do recall that AFP was light years faster than NFS on the Macs when
using the Finder (but similar speeds from terminal transfers). I
gathered that there was a bunch of latency from copying files using
Finder operations on NFS mounts.

Advantages of using Netatalk instead of Samba for Macintosh clients?

- File naming... Mac users don't have to follow Windows rules for
filenames

- Spotlight searches (finally fixed I think in OSX 10.5.x)

- Dual resource fork support

- A lot less objections/critiques from Macintosh users

I didn't find it to be a whole lot of extra administrative effort to
implement. Obviously you have to compile netatalk, setup the shares,
etc. but I use the same directories, the same uid's/gid's etc. and so it
is indifferent as to which networking protocol is used to access
(NFS/SMB/AFP).

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



More information about the CentOS mailing list