Em Dom, 2004-01-18 às 12:09, Andre Costa escreveu: Oi André! > > I wouldnt use it in a samba file server for win$hit boxes, especially > > if you have a lot of them, we ran dual test, and the 7.3 boxes kicked > > fedora all over the place for speed, moved them to rh9 still going > > fine, fedora was laggy slow horrid, when RH cease support for 9, and > > we get sick of deps issues when we manually compile updates on kernels > > etc, we are moving to slackware, RH lost us the moment they went teh > > fedora way, so many things just dont stand up to the known RedHat > > standard, the fedora mail server MX has been rebooted twice as well in > > a week, the (RH9 boxes keep on keeping on without glitch) > > (...) > such a negative impression about it yet. The samba issue is specially > worrisome for me because this server (which is not intended for such > heavy use -- please read my last posts on this thread) will indeed have > to serve files to windoze servers. That's odd about samba performance. As you may know, samba on redhat used to be version 2.x, and it's 3.x on fedora. Some magazines pointed out that samba 3 is the fastest netbios file sharing service, outperforming by a factor of 2 windows server 2003. Maybe configuration issues? Importing an old config file from 2.x to 3.x would make this? I don't know, almost don't use samba anyway. -- []s Alexandre Ganso 500 FOUR vermelha - Diretor Steel Goose Moto Group
