Sponsored link
Serve your customers, not your servers, with VERIO Linux VPS. Full-access test-drive here.
| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
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.