Re: Samba vs. NFS

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


On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 18:17, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi,
> > What is the convention wisdom with respect to Linux clients/Linux
> > server? NFS, SMB, both?
> > 
> > Samba SEEMS to provide better throughput yes? NFS presumably uses fewer
> > resources/cycles?
> Samba does not know about Posix uids/gids and permission bits (that is, all the
> info on ls -l). That's the reason NFS is better if the server and client are
> all Linux, FreeBSD or other Unix variants.
> It IS possible to use samba for, say, home directories or application
> directories, but you would'nt be able to store there set-uid executables or
> share files with other users (unless you make them world-readable or
> worl-writable).
I have been able to share files between users/groups with out having to
use the world readable bits.

When mounting the required directories with smb, ensure that you set the
GID to a particular group, and set the appropriate permissions 660/770.
We are then in a situation where every one that is a member of that
group have access to those files, but it is not a global thing.

This is working just fine for me at my office on the file server.


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux