On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, Xuan Baldauf wrote:
> Seth Mos wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, Xuan Baldauf wrote:
> > > Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> > > > For your Squid cache, don't go XFS, but instead go ReiserFS. It will do
> > > > a great
> > > > job there. For your Samba or NFS partition, go XFS and not ReiserFS.
> > >
> > > I do not use XFS, currently. Why is XFS better for Samba?
> > Because word documents average 0.1 - 1MB.
> Ah. So you just mean speed (quantity), not some features (quality)-
Yes, windows stuff tends to bloat. Most stuff placed on windows networks
are things like word and excel documents which average 0.5MB and
powerpoint presentations of more the 5MB.
But what do you mean with quality. Either it works or it doesn't.
And in my case I don't see any difference between usning Samba over NFS,
XFS, ReiserFS, JFS or ext2. It's rather the samba version that counts for
the amount of speed and features.
> I hope that someday, there will be an emancipation from NFS away (or an NFS
> those problems).
> Maybe Samba|CIFS can be a replacement someday. CIFS has some overhead, too,
> due to it's
> windows origins, but this is per packed basis and not for an unlimited time
> into the
It's not backward compatible. Our NCR MP-RAS SVR4 unix machine can't mount
CIFS shares but it can mount NFS v2 and v3.
A lot of systems out there can't mount CIFS shares.
> Are there alternatives? Intermezzo does not seem to be developed anymore. Is
> Does XFS have dynamically shrinking directories? If yes, how does XFS handles
> 32bit NFS cookies?
You will have to wait untill a XFS developer comments. I just do the FAQ,
I don't do the code.