|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)

Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)

Posted May 7, 2003 1:37 UTC (Wed) by elanthis (guest, #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?

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.


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds