Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)Posted May 7, 2003 1:37 UTC (Wed) by elanthis (subscriber, #6227)In reply to: Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer) by alan Parent article: Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer) smbfs? what does that have to do with the on-disk file system? iirc, smbfs is for the client, no?
(Log in to post comments)
Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer) Posted May 8, 2003 0:59 UTC (Thu) by alan (subscriber, #4018) [Link] hrrm,. samba client and server I thought. smbfs has nothing to do with the on disk filesystem. I'm simply noting that they compared fileserving performance. I am less interested than the previous poster was about the ondisk filesystem format because using the kernel smbfs support would enhance fileserving performance,. which is what was actually being compared.
|
|
||||||||||||