On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 18:17, listas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hi, > > > 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? > > Samba does not know about Posix uids/gids and permission bits (that is, all the > info on ls -l). That's the reason NFS is better if the server and client are > all Linux, FreeBSD or other Unix variants. > > It IS possible to use samba for, say, home directories or application > directories, but you would'nt be able to store there set-uid executables or > share files with other users (unless you make them world-readable or > worl-writable). I have been able to share files between users/groups with out having to use the world readable bits. When mounting the required directories with smb, ensure that you set the GID to a particular group, and set the appropriate permissions 660/770. We are then in a situation where every one that is a member of that group have access to those files, but it is not a global thing. This is working just fine for me at my office on the file server. Doug
