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

Re: NFS vs SMB



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
-- 
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
When the ax entered the forest, the trees said,
"The handle is one of us!"   -- Turkish proverb
Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°


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