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/ °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
