From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QSTxp-0004Ad-G4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:58:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9305D1C0BB; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 12:57:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com (out3.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 666DA1C0BB for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 12:57:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D282079C for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 08:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:57:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=JZKrBs3ZweYKfZTJPJqu2M8WpwM=; b=GrID0+O2hwRDneaE9jOvz5/RknjBg0d7uM/2mndWDmr2i/OxSikBpdMRKFEidWAKYV9eW82IHUDGCZ7uGT2VBTYgh9zAPfHEVJthm+LLlaQMX7jQAXBSamUzpe9M+oirWwf3IzCLACG7HdzUukAiw/GZc62bimOD+7aYddgisDE= X-Sasl-enc: BK3JK3gMzX4ivSld6JlbePXPL3VBtjP+HAAyLUoJpFuB 1307105851 Received: from [192.168.5.18] (serv.binarywings.net [83.169.5.6]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75F7E4438AA for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 08:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DE8DA34.7060205@binarywings.net> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:57:24 +0200 From: Florian Philipp User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110507 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.10 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] autofs References: <201106031244.57456.stephane@22decembre.eu> <201106031337.54808.stephane@22decembre.eu> <4541232.ejeL7krNmS@localhost> <201106031425.31441.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201106031425.31441.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig1EF4CB1C8246068281833D5B" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 8e3c99776c78b9326c87494bf93580c7 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig1EF4CB1C8246068281833D5B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 03.06.2011 14:25, schrieb Alan McKinnon: > Apparently, though unproven, at 14:18 on Friday 03 June 2011, Volker Ar= min=20 > Hemmann did opine thusly: >=20 >> On Friday 03 June 2011 13:37:54 St=E9phane Guedon wrote: >>> On Friday 03 June 2011 12:55:58 Alan McKinnon wrote: >>>> Apparently, though unproven, at 12:44 on Friday 03 June 2011, St=E9p= hane >>>> Guedon >>>> >>>> did opine thusly: [...] >>>> >>>> The point is that NFS was not designed with laptops and other device= s >>>> that can be disconnected in mind. It was designed for secure LANs th= at >>>> do not change much, and laptops present issues that are not easy to >>>> solve. [...] >>> >>> Nfs hasn't been designed for laptop, it's ok. But, appart from coda >>> (which has a file size limit of 1 giga, so, useless in home networkin= g), >>> I know nothing that is fit for network file-sharing for laptop (the >>> laptop isn't the server of course). >>> >>> I search a solution for that since years ! >> >> samba? >=20 > +1 >=20 > Samba works nicely for ad-hoc connections, the kind of thing Windows cl= ients=20 > would do. And it's a lot more tolerant of connections going away than N= FS. >=20 >=20 I always was under the impression that NFS is more fault-tolerant on the network because of its usage of stateless UDP connections whereas CIFS usually freezes when the connection is lost. In the end, both issue an IO error, usually crashing an unprepared application. So, in which regard performs CIFS better with interrupted connections? That being said, I always use NFS over TCP because of performance issues with UDP and wireless LAN. Regards, Florian Philipp --------------enig1EF4CB1C8246068281833D5B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk3o2jkACgkQqs4uOUlOuU9yfACfVbSLAJN9JhaoxdC5Yp8QjS0v FTEAn1U0YgaTH5aTFY+WPk0XOSPmV2Ji =bO0s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig1EF4CB1C8246068281833D5B--