2012-11-26 03:44 AM
We currently have NetApp as our storage solution and all shares are CIFS. I am now looking for any benefits that CIFS have over Windows File Server and vice versa. We currently have SAN storage in London and in Berlin. The set-up has to be configured that if the storage system in London fails it has to be brought up in Berlin. The problem is that is the Berlin we have same storage names so there would be naming conflict with CIFS where Windows File Server would not. I have read some other comparisons like:
|Feature||CIFS||Windows File Server|
|Multiple connections to a file||√||Read-Only Mode|
|Fault Tolerance||√||Achievable with DFS|
Optimization for slow links
|Security (Anonymous and Secure)||√||Only Secure|
|Global File Names||√||-|
|Backups||Alternative solutions needed||√|
|Windows Shadow copies||-||√|
|Security Management over multiple AD forests||More Complicated but possible||√|
|Centralized Storage||√||Achievable with DFS|
|Mirroring||√||Achievable with alternative technologies|
|Storage Hot Add||√||-|
|Access Based Enumeration||-||√|
|DFS and DFS-Replication||Achievable with alternative technologies||√|
These are just some comparisons but I would like to know if there are more or if there is any fault in the list.
What are the benefits of Windows File Server over CIFS?
What are the benefits of CIFS over Windows File Server?
Also if anybody can explain what does Global File Name mean?
2012-11-26 07:04 AM
when using the netapp machine to serve files for windows clients using the CIFS license/SMB protocol, it is possible to use ABE on the netapp shares. I cannot think about a configuration where this is not possible?!