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

- 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


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