Re: NFS or smbfs Filesystems for IDS backup?

"Willem Roos" <wroos@shoprite.co.za> schrieb: >I prefer NFS over CIFS/SMB as it is stateless where the latter is >statefull. NFS mounts survive network outages where CIFS/SMB shares >don't. The slightest loss of comms will render your SMB connection stale >& you'll have to restart your SMB client. Thanks a lot for this info. However, my experience with this is a little different: Network shares between Windows machines do survive network outages and server reboots without problems; I figure that they are re- established in the background transparently when they are accessed again after such an outage. On the other hand, I have a NFS connection between two different UNIX machines that has never survived an outage of the NFS server. Of course, YMMV. >You have to choose between two devils - using M$'s NFS server or a UNIX >implementation of CIFS :-) Good luck. No experience yet with the MS NFS server implementation in SFU 3.5. In the SFU newsgroup, I've read numerous reports of rather poor performance, however subject to tuning. >Why don't you use onbar with ISM & file devices? How would that help? Another problem is that I have the Legato Networker client installed on that machine and use it for filesystem backup. I'm afraid that ISM, which is a stripped-down version of Networker, would interfere with that. Regards, Richard