-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Lewi wrote: >I have a job to replace Netware to linux as linux server on my division, > >well, when I'm trying to search information in internet, I found that >linux with samba is slower than NT >try a look at: >http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html >I know that the result maybe can't be compared today >does anyone know anything about this, and what do u think?
The original Mindcraft study did find some differences, but it was flawed. A followup study did find Samba slower in the tested configuration. Both tests ran highly optimized dual processor configurations that perform better than 90% of the file servers in use. A test that ran with out-of-the-box configurations on single-processor machines found Samba much faster than NT when serving NT clients and comparable when serving Win9x clients. Unless you are going to spend a lot of time and energy selecting the very best dual-processor hardware and optimizing and testing your configuration, then Samba is a very good choice. Tony - -- Anthony E. Greene <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26 C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D AOL/Yahoo Chat: TonyG05 HomePage: <http://www.pobox.com/~agreene/> Linux: the choice of a GNU Generation. <http://www.linux.org/> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Anthony E. Greene 0x6C94239D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> iD8DBQE8mfvWpCpg3WyUI50RAiEQAKDMruBPnN4JJNA5ADwgzt8hwmeKsgCgyN7D EHMyW21iEP0sFSRQePpjHTQ= =bEzm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
