afp vs smb 1

[dodge20]

Does anyone know what connection is better for an OS 10.3 to a Tiger server? We currently have a linux server, and we can't get a satisfactory connection to it. The afp through netatalk is ridiculously slow and smb doesn't show some files, and doesn't save changes to some files. So I was considering implementing the tiger server, and am curious if we will experience the same problems. I would hope this would alleviate some of the problems, but I would like to be sure. Any links to articles would also be appreciated.

FYI, we are running adobe Indesign/Incopy - which is very server intensive.

Dodge20

 

[Zelandakh]

AFP is quick on Tiger. SMB is as well. If you implement local groups and add the users to it, it will work fine. 10.3 link to AD if you are using AD is not ideal.

For Mac to Tiger use AFP.

 

[dodge20]

Thanks Zelandakh

Any other opinions?

Dodge20

 

[DesperateHusband]

With AFP connections to Windows 2000 or 2003 servers you have becareful about path and file name length. There is an 88 character length limit including the path and path name.

If you have an auto mounted afp network home folder, Classic applications will not run because the "font bank" path for Classic is too deep and can't be changed.

IN the same scenario using SMB for the auto mount home folder, the user cannot delete or move files/folders as the server doesn't grant you full permission. You can rename, you can add and modify.

In these situations, you will need a third party software like Thursby's AdmitMac (individual, unique serial number, client side Mac/Windows file software OR use Group Logic's Server side (no client software necessary) Mac/Windows file server software. Both are rather expensive, but if you are going to share network home folders on a 2000/2003 server with both Apple and Windows clients you will NEED one of the other to completly integrate both clients to Active Directory.