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.