[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: NFS vs SMB



On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 20:08 -0400, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 00:13 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 18:28 -0400, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 12:37 +0100, Dan Track wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > > 
> > > > Could someone please highlight the pros and cons of using nfs over smb.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks in advance
> > > > Dan
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I understand that samba is a little more secure than NFS.  But if you
> > > really want an easy solution, try fuse-sshfs:
> > > 
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/extras/4/i386/repodata/repoview/fuse-
> > > sshfs-0-1.2-3.fc4.html
> > > 
> > > It's implemented in user space and is as easy as a login.  Your UID's do
> > > not need to be the same on other machines, like with NFS.  You just need
> > > a login, and then you can mount the directory(s).  There's no messing
> > > around with root controlled files as in NFS/Samba.  The implementation
> > > is fast, easy, and I think it's more secure than either NFS or Samba.
> > > 
> > > LX
> > > -- 
> > 
> > Both FUSE and especially SSH add huge amount of over-head.
> > Unless there's a specific reason that dictates the need for extra
> > security and encryption (Sharing files over the Internet and/or insecure
> > network), I'd advise against using SSHFS.
> > 
> > Gilboa
> > 
> 
> I think you can throttle back the encryption level, which would
> effectively reduce/remove any overhead you are referring to, if you are
> on a local subnet.
> 
> LX
> -- 

Even so, it still adds significant over-head... especially on older
machines.

Gilboa


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]