My guess would be he isn't happy with NFS because it can be used to
comprimise a system. Of course I would have to say "Don't export your
home directory" ::grinz::
I believe NFS would be the better choice. I can't imagine SMB being all
that fast or secure. It's NetBios encapsulated in IP if I remember
right. More overhead can't be faster :D
Just my two cents
Frank
>
> >On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Robert Burton wrote:
> >
> >> I have a Snap Server 4000 (rack mount) that I need to backup. I can
> >> connect to the Snap via smbmount (which I've already done) and by
> NFS.
> >> But I haven't used NFS before. Is using one better then the other?
> Any
> >> opinions on which would be better to connect with to do the backups?
> The
> >> backups by the way are going to a Seagate Scorpion96 tape drive I
> have
> >> hooked up the a Linux box, I still need to get it to work with BRU
> though.
> >
> >I am not a fan of NFS, but don't you lose ALL security permissions of
> >files and directories if you use smbmount to backup your computer?
> >
>
> Hossein,
>
> As someone else mentioned, Samba can help you with the file and
> directory
> permissions. I'm actually not to worried about that. The files are used
> in a primarily Windows95/98 environment so those permissions are not a
> big worry.
>
> Can you explain why you're not a fan of NFS? I guess I should explain
> more of what I'm looking for. Things like what keeps a connection better
>
> (if that's even an issue). Speed of file transfers. How much burden is
> each protocol on the server. Things like that.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> -Bob Burton
> IT Consultant
> Literati Information Technology, LLC
--
This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows NT reboot.
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
