Komparasi NFS vs SAMBA (CIFS)

Beberapa rangkuman komparasi antara NFS & SAMBA (CIFS)
1. ...NFS is a technology that allows two UNIX boxes to share drives... (Sumber: http://www.elvenware.com/charlie/linux/LinuxNFSSambaCVS.html)

2. ... After many tests, Dr. Jack Fegreus concluded that for Gigabit Ethernet server-to-server file I/O traffic between UNIX/Linux servers and Windows Server 2003, the performance choice is to put NFS on Windows rather than utilize CIFS (SAMBA). When it comes to putting NFS on Windows there are then two choices: Microsoft Services for UNIX (SFU) and DiskShare... (Sumber: http://www.javvin.com/NFSdoc/nfsperformance.html)




3. ... From single threaded applications NFS gets more requests on the wire
than CIFS ... NFS network i/o size seems to fall back to 4K more than it should,
CIFS normally uses 56K for write, 16K for read. This should help cifs a
little, but NFS gets more read and write requests on the wire... In general I am seeing NFS much faster on read from single threaded apps compared to cifs... (Sumber: http://www.nabble.com/Linux-CIFS-performance-t3364721.html)