61
Samba vs NFS vs SSHFS ?
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
61 points (95.5% liked)
Linux
48375 readers
1980 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Follow-up question:
Is anybody really using NFS?
I have found SMB to be sufficient. The network folder in the file browser is really nice. I don't think NFS has that.
NFS is fantastic from a practical standpoint. You can literally specify it in your fstab to mount the network share at boot.
The best part is, there is no latency in waiting for it to mount. It only tries to fetch data once you request a resource from that mount path. Translation: If your network device is asleep, NFS will wake it up for you and fetch the resource on demand.
I love NFS
Uh, the same is possible with any other file system, too.
//nas/share. /mnt/smbshared cifs defaults,auto,ver=3,credentials=/some/safe/location 0 0
+2 systemd-network dontknowyet entries (still for fstab Mount options)
Another way ist working with systemd/systemctl and create .mount .automount units
Doesn't samba block synchronously until mounted?
I've never noticed any issues or long delays. My Raspberrys come up either way. Might take a bit longer if the NAS isn't accessible - but they still come up. Only without the mounted shares, of course.
As an alternative, you could do the same using systemd.
Only if you don't care about the NAS'es file permission management and have the same uid on all your systems mounting the same shares via NFS. Not sure if it's different with other NAS implementations, but on my Synology DS415+ all files put on there via NFS get the UID from the source system. Which isn't the UID of my user on the Synology.
E.g. on my Raspberrys, my user usually is uid 1000 / gid 1000. But on my Synology, my user is uid 1026 / gid 100. So the integrated management tools (e.g. File Station) show mangled permissions as the user with uid 1000 is not known.
And the only real solution to this is to use a Kerberos server - which I think is a bit overkill in a 1 user environment. idmap doesn't really work on my NAS.
I'm so used to SMB and SSH, especially with the file manager integration. I was wondering if we have something similar with nfs.
file manager integration could be better, I agree
It would also be great if it can work with zeroconf.
Have they done anything about the lack of security? Last I checked, anyone could mount an NFS share and access it as whatever user they wanted, without authentication.
That's a feature! If you can access that share as rw, you should be able to do anything to it IMO. If it's hosted read-only, then no matter what privileges you mount it with, the data is still protected
I read/heard that alot of NAS server users tend to use NFS shares :/ Don't actually know why, but that's what I found out while reading server/NAS configurations on the web.
Maybe because NFS's speed compared to samba and SSHFS?