smbmount vs. smbclient

[kristian.hermansen at gmail.com (Kristian Hermansen)]

On 3/12/07, jbk <jbk at mail2.gis.net> wrote:
> I have not exceeded the speed limit on my home network which
> I have been using samba for 10 years. I can run it through a

The problem is with the protocol efficiency in comparison.  Set up an
NFS server, and see how fast you can pipe the data you've been trying
over SMB for years.

> firewall and stream music over it and view videos at the
> same time. It is fairly easy to set up and is well
> documented. NFS may be better but is more difficult to setup
> as it requires six different ports for the 3 sub protocols
> that it utilizes to operate.

If it is a local network, NFS should be used.  You trust all your
users.  And it is more efficient.  I just copied a 500M file from my
machine locally, on the same box, using the loopback interface, with
both protocols.  NFS blew away SMB in comparison.  But don't just take
my word for it...

> What home environment requires NFS? A home environment as I
> define it is isolated to the cabling or access point that
> serves only your household and no other hosting. How do
> others define it? When someone says a protocol sucks I want
> to know at what scale that is.

Sure.  For per share security (and Windows compatibility), go with
SMB.  But most people on a local network just share their MP3 folders,
etc.  They usually don't really need per share ACLs anyway.  So, if
you have only nix hosts on your network, and you trust your local
network, why not use NFS?  Did I miss a point you were trying to make
here?  By 'sucks', I meant in terms of performance...
-- 
Kristian Hermansen

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