| 1 |
On 4/20/2011 9:21 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Okay, I'm combining the portage distfiles dir into a storage server. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Problem: the storage server is Windows 2003. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Question: should I mount the distfile dir using SMB/CIFS or NFS? Is |
| 7 |
> there any performance and/or complexity issues? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
My own anecdotal experience thus far has been that CIFS, |
| 10 |
"out-of-the-box", outperforms NFS and just generally works better when |
| 11 |
the underlying OS is Windows. (Caveat: I have not used NFS Services in |
| 12 |
2008, only 2003R2 and SFU). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
As far as complexity: if you are running Windows 2003 R2 then NFS |
| 15 |
Services are built-in, and once you start the services, creating and |
| 16 |
managing an NFS share through the UI is basically the same as creating |
| 17 |
and managing a CIFS one, except for the differences in how the security |
| 18 |
model works. Setting up CIFS on a Linux client is simple enough, and |
| 19 |
also not that much more complex than setting up NFS. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If you're running Windows 2003 non-R2 and want NFS, you'll need the |
| 22 |
Services for UNIX component, at which point I would contend it's not |
| 23 |
worth the effort. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
--Mike |
Archives