[PLUG] nfs v. samba

[fh hillsboro]

I'd probably go with nfs just because smb tends to be a bit more 
"chatty".  If you have any plans for Windoze systems in the future, then 
go with samba because all Win systems speak it.  You might also want to 
consider that one of the reasons that smb is more verbose is that it is 
"stateful" and nfs is not.  You can actually play this to your advantage 
sometimes - nfs will just keep trying to find what it is looking for 
(depending on the mount type) because it is too dumb to know that it's 
gone.  Nfs will come back when the system re-appears.  Smb knows that a 
client or server is gone and applications that are not written to 
re-start the network will have to be re-started.

dan at fiddlers-green.info wrote:

>All,
>
>I'm setting up cheap multi-zone audio using 4 seperate linux boxes with sounds
>cards around my house. I have a central server with my ogg vorbis files that
>I'll share out to each of the audio boxes. My question is should I use samba or
>nfs, and why one over the other?
>
>thanks,
>
>Dan Herrington
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>_______________________________________________
>PLUG mailing list
>PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
>http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
>
>  
>

-- 
Frank Hunt
Confused Linux Admin
General Nuisance
Web Weasel