| 1 |
On 25/02/2013 13:03, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Eray Aslan posted on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:02:49 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>>> I don't think samba will support MIT, since it's kinda windows |
| 5 |
>>>> focused. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Ugh, no. MIT is not windows focused |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> ... But samba is... |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> As far as the thread in general goes, the question arises, if you're |
| 13 |
> running both samba and nfs, why? They're both network-based-filesystems |
| 14 |
> that in theory at least should have reasonably similar functionality, so |
| 15 |
> an admittedly not particularly clueful reaction is "if it hurts when you |
| 16 |
> do that, stop doing it". |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Two words: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
mixed environment |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
In corporate networks it is very common to share the same backend over |
| 25 |
both smb/cifs and nfs. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Windows clients can't easily deal with anything other than cifs. |
| 28 |
Linux client invariably whinge at length about how the performance of |
| 29 |
samba sucks. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Solution: run both protocols, everyone wins. |
| 32 |
It only goes south when AD/Kerberos enters the mix. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 37 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives