Quote:
Originally Posted by patrik
The files does not need to be written to disk first as it would need to in the ftp client case, so unless something is wrong with the implementation, it should in general be faster as you can operate on the file directly - say if you extract an archive directly from the network drive.
|
That is indeed the case, but I was wondering if there was a big speed difference because of CPU-load - it would obviously be faster to copy an archive to RAM first if FTP goes at 10mb/s but SMB only works at 2mb/s tops. Obviously these are facetious numbers I made up right now just to explain what I am meaning
Quote:
Originally Posted by BSzili
I've only tried it on high-end systems, so I can't tell, but it should be comparable to smbfs.
|
Never tried smbfs on Amiga, just FTP. I will try comparing it to FTP whenever I get the chance.
SMB2/3 is certainly an improvement over SMB1 since Microsoft is making it more and more difficult to use SMB1 in Windows - I have an Ubuntu VM with Samba just because of that