From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-58799-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E10198005
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:53:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 27834E0686;
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:53:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30309E0675
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:53:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c10so3128899ieb.17
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 06:53:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=bMV0a5A1/Oco5d81aVfjRtoNWAw3sODCcAiDL3QGUlE=;
b=qUAJDmYjDnHvfj5zXLUUjoExJCG6m513KtLCq30+VGKqpFEbua14NsY5krcBciF9Db
GRlUpKdM6E8Q2mgaORIAF9PP03EgwY2uLEGTe7558vfrTBlqVqAi5dniIKt7YO3RhMpl
3EwtcRt6u3oeisQxLefz9SBq4Gh8qJq7wSShi0UExn//lzPlgxwaZSfhs5PPxQON5uK5
9l1FFiJCfJuaQwMFEzTpjeyDPCVd3ynUaTQAPg3GtM5VVfMSQxW6P2Jzlp7jpm94ZtVP
Im9KrWt6LN1bkWdsPLfy5gKeN9PQCRyeNO9KxOfuNt+NCUbvZFYtrO2cJg6Vkub2bG9C
6CZw==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.18.3 with SMTP id qe3mr3617388icb.12.1361804030431; Mon,
25 Feb 2013 06:53:50 -0800 (PST)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.21.98 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 06:53:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <512B7632.90503@gmail.com>
References: <512ACBA1.7090209@gmail.com>
<512B10E5.5080408@gentoo.org>
<CAAr7Pr8VPhEKTmKgz1ais-NGara+QFr7HXazmfAmMpj+51tt3g@mail.gmail.com>
<20130225080249.GB2634@gaby.caf.com.tr>
<pan$ecfce$57354ce3$e14203ff$2d9d3779@cox.net>
<512B7632.90503@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:53:50 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6Me2hmULHzuC3ymwrD7dqYFOnD0
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_nPj2jn_FHdx-AD7VRQPgHb_gCJO8eEo=R7krtNJN8=cA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: kerberos, virtuals, rattling cages
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: eae7c59c-6ce9-4a9a-b0fd-03bcc241f706
X-Archives-Hash: ad523062a5f63fc022fd9712f457c6ee
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Linux client invariably whinge at length about how the performance of
> samba sucks.
I suspect there is more at issue than just performance.
I run both samba and nfs (though without kerberos), and have the
windows issues you mentioned, and I doubt that you can use samba as a
root filesystem (that sounds painful at the very least), which is one
of the things I use it for. NFS is just a lot cleaner for linux
clients.
Rich