Re: [SLUG] NFS and bandwidth

From: Ian C. Blenke (icblenke@nks.net)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 15:45:25 EDT


On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 11:28, Derek Glidden wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 09:02, Russell Hires wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> NFS is not known for its network efficiency, but it's certainly less
> chatty than Appletalk (MacOS) or SMB (Windows) for filesharing, which
> both rely on lots of broadcast traffic to figure out what's on the
> network with them.

NFS v2 over UDP is definitely less efficient than NFS v3 over TCP. The
speed differences between SMB and NFS v3 are negligible though. As for
Appletalk, I only know how easy netatalk is to setup and run.. the
applecore-over-IP low-level semantics are something I've never really
had to fight with ("it just works", as with most things Apple).

> > The reason for all of this is the GIMP. Photoshop licenses aren't cheap!
> > There's an art professor that comes in to the school to teach some of the
> > more artistically gifted students every so often. I don't know his schedule,
> > though, which means I haven't been able to show him this free software yet.
> > So I figure this is a great use for Linux! :-D
>
> I think once you show it off, and explain the fact that's it's all free
> software, any complaints about network performance will be
> overridden... :)

OpenSource is funny like that ;)

- Ian



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:59:28 EDT