CIFS or SMB for Sql server NAS storage?

[mark blakey]

I know database storage requirements are different to those of standard file servers, in terms of the way that they use files etc.
Does anyone know which is better for a NAS based database storage solution, SMB or CIFS? Or can offer any advice on which would be more appropriate.

[Caesar_3]

Hello!

First of all the SMB (samba) is the same as
the CIFS, CIFS is the samba that hp compiled and give support for.
I think that better to use SMB because that's the original and they made updates and develop more that made on CIFS.
Also for use with microsoft and all the new OS from them the SMB made updates for quickly.

Caesar

[Leif Halvarsson_2]

Hi,
In general, it is not recommend to use NAS storage for databases. The only excepion I know is NetApp filers.
http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3162.html

[Vincent Fleming]

I wouldn't say NetApp filers are "recommended" for database storage... except by NetApps, who has no other storage product!

Generally, you can use NAS for databases, but it's not recommended for a variety of reasons - performance, security, reliability, etc.

However, in the few cases where you don't care about such items, NAS can be used and be useful. (it does work with databases)

The previous poster was pretty much correct in saying that SMB (Server Message Blocks) and CIFS (Common Internet File System) are the same thing - SMB is the underlying protocol of CIFS.

Perhaps you meant NFS and CIFS/SMB. NFS is the native UNIX network filesystem, and CIFS/SMB the equivelent Windows technology.

Which would be better for you depends on what OS (UNIX or Windows) you are working with.

Always go with the native protocol. In your case, since you say this is SQL Server, I guess you're on Windows....

For NAS heads, I would suggest the e7000, b3000 or b2000. See http://h18006.www1.hp.com/storage/networkattached.html for details on these products.

Good luck,

Vince