Niklas Hallqvist wrote:
> >>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Scheler <tron@lyssa.owl.de> writes:
> 
> >> NFS is slower but it seems to be quite common...
> 
> Matthias> No, NFS should actually be faster (AmiTCP/IP 4.2 FTP:
> Matthias> 250KB/sec, NFS: 400KB/sec). NetBSD-Amiga's NFS client is
> Matthias> somehow broken because you get much better performance if
> Matthias> you use your Amiga as NFS server.
> 
> Hmm, doesn't NFS require synchronous writes?  Maybe Amiga NFS doesn't
> adhere to this semantic requirement?  I've never seen an NFS
> implementation that beats file transfer protocols.  It also seem
> counterintuitive that a general protocol should be faster than a
> specific one...
> 
> This is only a guess, I could well be totally wrong...  however I'd be
> interested in knowing why NFS ought to be faster in theory, if that is
> the fact.

NFS uses UDP, while FTP uses TCP. That can make a difference.

Greetings,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven                     Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Wavelets, Linux/m68k on Amiga          http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~geert/
Department of Computer Science -- Katholieke Universiteit Leuven -- Belgium