Linux

48310 readers

985 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

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

Samba vs NFS vs SSHFS ? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 7 months ago by N0x0n@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml

64 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hi everyone !

Right now I can't decide wich one is the most versatile and fit my personal needs, so I'm looking into your personal experience with each one of them, if you mind sharing your experience.

It's mostly for secure shared volumes containing ebooks and media storage/files on my home network. Adding some security into the mix even tough I actually don't need it (mostly for learning process).

More precisely how difficult is the NFS configuration with kerberos? Is it actually useful? Never used kerberos and have no idea how it works, so it's a very much new tech on my side.

I would really apreciate some indepth personal experience and why you would considere one over another !

Thank you !

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago (12 children)

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.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 9 points 7 months ago (10 children)

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

[–] mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.uk 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

You can literally specify it in your fstab to mount the network share at boot.

Uh, the same is possible with any other file system, too.

//nas/share    /mnt/whatever    smb3    defaults,auto,username=bob,password=xxx    0   0

[–] IceFoxX@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

//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

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't samba block synchronously until mounted?

[–] mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.uk 2 points 7 months ago

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.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)