It was my understanding that KeyLabs performed the follow up study and demonstrated Samba was slightly slower than NT. Not surprising. I wouldn't consider a system emulating something else to be just as fast or better when compared apples to apples.
If you really need fast file server manipulation then usually Novell NetWare servers outperform other platforms (been my experience at least). NT is pretty decent for low end app servers (and if you are not worried about security). UNIX for the power house apps. You can't beat 30 + years of experience. Microsoft has done a fine job of trying to catch up but they still have much more work ahead of them before they are enterprise ready in my opinion. Frank > >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 > _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
