Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samba Beats Windows IT Week Labs Test Results

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the thrashing-the-competition dept.

jmhowitt writes "Tests by IT Week Labs show the latest version of the open-source Samba file and print server software is 2.5 times faster than Windows Server 2003 in the same role. The news comes as many firms are grappling with the consequences of Microsoft ending support for NT4, coupled with uncertainty about when Microsoft will next update Windows. The performance difference between Windows Server 2003 and Samba 3 has increased dramatically compared with Samba 2 and Windows 2000 Server."

3 of 380 comments (clear)

  1. Show me the fucking ACLs! by slittle · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Is it me or does the ACL situation of *nix just suck compared to NTFS? Do I have to go commercial? Maybe Novell-on-Linux (free personal edition?)? Or are decent* ACLs in the works?

    Doesn't really matter if Samba is the most badass file server ever, SMB or otherwise, if managing TBs of data is like pulling teeth, departments will choose NT.

    *I know there are ACL filesystems for Linux, but from what I've seen they're pretty basic.

    --
    Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
  2. Excuse me... by dnaumov · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    I am a big fan of OSS, *BSD, Linux, Samba, you name it, but I have to call bulllshit on this one. A 2.5 x speed advantage can only mean one thing: misconfigured Windows machines. In my own experience (running a FreeBSD box with Samba 2.2.8 on a LAN full of Win2000/XP boxes), the Samba speed advantage has been about 30-40%.

    Where are the system specs, charts, graphs, actual numbers ?

  3. Re:The best thing about Samba... by gregorio · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    In the case that you meant it earnest ($p \approx 0$): Of course, for many companies, their SMB shares are mission critical. Not the client, but the server and the files.
    I'm sorry, but Samba is not the appropriate choice for anything critical.