Samba vs. NFS

[Alexandre de Abreu]

David C. Hart wrote:
> What is the convention wisdom with respect to Linux clients/Linux
> server? NFS, SMB, both?
> 
> Samba SEEMS to provide better throughput yes? NFS presumably uses fewer
> resources/cycles?
> 
>                                ---------
>             Quality Management - A Commitment to Excellence

You can fix the ports and then play with iptables rules. NFS uses 
tcp/udp 2049 and if you edit the nfs script under /etc/init.d you will 
see that if the MOUNTD_PORT variable is set, the daemon is started with 
the -p option indicating the port that the rpc.mountd process will bind.

You can verify this with 2 commands:

"netstat -anp|grep LISTEN" or "rpcinfo -p localhost"

This will show the process name and port numbers of the RPC services.

[s]

-- 
Alexandre Lima de Abreu, RHCE, LPIC-2
http://www.proteus.com.br
Proteus Security Systems
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2832 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20031209/d817154b/attachment-0001.bin>