Re: Samba (was: OS-X vs. Windows)

[Scott Klement <klemscot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Note the other threads in this list regarding how slow Netserver is :)

IMHO, when Netserver is working properly and at it's best, it's about 1/3
the speed of accessing a share on an NT box.   (Of course, my only
experience is with my own model 270... which is very fast for other
things, and not loaded down much at all)

Samba is actually faster, and IMHO, more stable than an NT box.  It's also
(again, IMHO) more secure than an NT box.  (but then, what isn't?)

My two big problems with Netserver are that it is buggy, and doesn't work
with all of the various SMB clients ("but it works with Windows, and
that's all that counts, right?!?!") and it's comparatively slow.


On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, James Rich wrote:

> On 17 Dec 2001 thomas@inorbit.com wrote:
>
> > > It also allows your unix box to act as a PDC.  It can do wins whatever and
> > > time control, logins, etc.
> >
> > So, it does essentially what V5R1 of Netserver does?
>
> Well since I don't have v5r1 I can't really answer that very well.  If
> Netserver does the same things I am willing to bet that it doesn't do them
> nearly as well (meaning fast) as Samba does.  Samba even out performs
> Microsoft's own software, though I can't remember where I saw the
> benchmarks to prove it.
>
> James Rich
> james@eaerich.com