Network and Storage Protocols

Windows File Server vs CIFS


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:

Windows File Server
Multiple connections to a file Read-Only Mode
Fault ToleranceAchievable with DFS

Optimization for slow links

Security (Anonymous and Secure)Only Secure
Global File Names-
Windows Licences-
BackupsAlternative solutions needed
Windows Shadow copies-
Security Management over multiple AD forestsMore Complicated but possible
Centralized StorageAchievable with DFS
MirroringAchievable with alternative technologies
Storage Hot Add-
Access Based Enumeration-
DFS and DFS-ReplicationAchievable 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?




ABE is possible on netapp storage ...


It is possible but only if the Windows Share is located on the NetApp drive not directly.


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?!