zlacker

>>chmayn+(OP)
Isn't SMB better than NFS?

>>mangix+5h
NFS is free, modular, and feature-rich.

SMB1 was slow - very slow. Novell IPX/SPX was far faster.

SMB2 changed the protocol to include multiple operations in a single packet, but did not introduce encryption (and Microsoft ignored other SMB encryption schemes). It is a LOT faster.

SMB3 finally adds encryption, but only runs in Windows 8 and above.

NFS is a bit messy on the question of encryption, but is a much more open and free set of tools.

>>chasil+sx
In the SMB1 section are you trying to say that SMB1 was faster over IPX/SPX or did you mean to say Novell NCP was faster than SMB1?

>>tssva+6l1
Just looked it up. It looks like the NFS server inside Netware was twice as fast as SCO on the same hardware.

I wonder if it would maintain a speed advantage today.

"NetWare dominated the network operating system (NOS) market from the mid-1980s through the mid- to late-1990s due to its extremely high performance relative to other NOS technologies. Most benchmarks during this period demonstrated a 5:1 to 10:1 performance advantage over products from Microsoft, Banyan, and others. One noteworthy benchmark pitted NetWare 3.x running NFS services over TCP/IP (not NetWare's native IPX protocol) against a dedicated Auspex NFS server and an SCO Unix server running NFS service. NetWare NFS outperformed both 'native' NFS systems and claimed a 2:1 performance advantage over SCO Unix NFS on the same hardware."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetWare#Performance