What is better as a backup server - Samba or NFS?

Question

WordPress

There is an Ubuntu Server file server . There is a backup server , which is also Ubuntu Server. Which solution is more productive for a backup server - Samba or NFS?
So that Windows users do not have to install an NFS client, which is disabled by default in Windows 7, Samba is deployed on the file server. With a certain frequency, backups are made from the file server to the backup server. Which solution will be more productive - transfer from a file server to a backup server via the NFS protocol, or also choose Samba?
The scheme is as follows:
(Workstations) <——— Samba ———> (File Server) ——— NFS ———> (Backup Server)

Answer 1

Hello.

if( has_term('', 'author') ){
    //входит
}

Answer 2

NFS is native to Linux protocol, samba is native to Windows.
NFS - natively supports Linux file systems, samba - converts.
NFS - will be noticeably faster on many files, but the transfer of large single files is basically comparable. Most likely, the slowdown is due to working with file attributes and access rights.
I would recommend nfs.

Answer 3

I recommend installing urbackup.org , especially if the network is small.
Everything will be done automatically, there is a server for Linux, clients, for almost all platforms.
PS. Well, or leave samba, various attributes that are incompatible with ntfs may be lost in nfs. In a samba they truth too can be lost.
So it's better to install backup software that will save the attributes correctly.
P.P.S. Well, if you are strong in spirit, then you can deploy bareos. There is also a Windows client.
And yes, I use both, bareos is on the cluster, and urbackup is in the offices.

Answer 4

tape drive

Answer 5

rsync is better. It transfers files over the network more efficiently, compares block by block, transfers only changes, and so on. There are a bunch of backup solutions on this protocol.