Am 03.06.2011 14:25, schrieb Alan McKinnon: > Apparently, though unproven, at 14:18 on Friday 03 June 2011, Volker Armin > Hemmann did opine thusly: > >> On Friday 03 June 2011 13:37:54 Stéphane Guedon wrote: >>> On Friday 03 June 2011 12:55:58 Alan McKinnon wrote: >>>> Apparently, though unproven, at 12:44 on Friday 03 June 2011, Stéphane >>>> Guedon >>>> >>>> did opine thusly: [...] >>>> >>>> The point is that NFS was not designed with laptops and other devices >>>> that can be disconnected in mind. It was designed for secure LANs that >>>> do not change much, and laptops present issues that are not easy to >>>> solve. [...] >>> >>> Nfs hasn't been designed for laptop, it's ok. But, appart from coda >>> (which has a file size limit of 1 giga, so, useless in home networking), >>> I know nothing that is fit for network file-sharing for laptop (the >>> laptop isn't the server of course). >>> >>> I search a solution for that since years ! >> >> samba? > > +1 > > Samba works nicely for ad-hoc connections, the kind of thing Windows clients > would do. And it's a lot more tolerant of connections going away than NFS. > >
I always was under the impression that NFS is more fault-tolerant on the network because of its usage of stateless UDP connections whereas CIFS usually freezes when the connection is lost. In the end, both issue an IO error, usually crashing an unprepared application. So, in which regard performs CIFS better with interrupted connections? That being said, I always use NFS over TCP because of performance issues with UDP and wireless LAN. Regards, Florian Philipp
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
