nfs
in [Slackware]
|
From: Mike Jones on 20 Jan 2010 12:29 Responding to trryhend(a)gmail.com: [...] >> sshfs is not a replacement for nfs, first thing you lose is multiuser >> simultaneous file access, not something I'd want for a unix system ;) >> >> Grant. >> --http://bugs.id.au > > Good point. User names on these two computers are NOT same. AND, if I > want to mount the share from my laptop, (the way it is now), long as I > remember the shared directory names and IP addresses, I will be able to > connect to them as well. (We often share photos from holiday and > vacation trips that we enjoy together.) Er, I've got various shared dirs that all users can access, and user- specific ones that are private to that user across the network. I also have the (user's) network login semi-automated, where anything a user has on any network machine is mounted up on single network login. On each machine, each user has their various data collections (on various partitions) clearly named (/USERDATA/username), and a .hidden file is regenerated identifying those resources on each boot, which is used as a user's sshfs "get this and mount these" LAN-access auto-mount list. I only have my ssh port open on any machine, and then only to the local LAN, and I can do everything I did before with NFS. The only thing I've needed to line up is user's ID numbers, and now I've established my own "best working practice" on that one, life is much simpler, much more secure, and easier for everybody. Not that I'm pushing sshfs as /the/ solution here, but it is a tad more useful than might be realised by regular NFS users. -- *=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ *=( For all your UK news needs.
From: jr4412 on 20 Jan 2010 14:25 On 20 Jan, 17:29, Mike Jones <N...(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: > > Er, I've got various shared dirs that all users can access, and user- > specific ones that are private to that user across the network. > > I also have the (user's) network login semi-automated, where anything a > user has on any network machine is mounted up on single network login. I wonder, why not use samba? perfect for the above needs.
From: Grant on 20 Jan 2010 15:37 On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:29:32 GMT, Mike Jones <Not(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: >Responding to trryhend(a)gmail.com: > >[...] >>> sshfs is not a replacement for nfs, first thing you lose is multiuser >>> simultaneous file access, not something I'd want for a unix system ;) >>> >>> Grant. >>> --http://bugs.id.au >> >> Good point. User names on these two computers are NOT same. AND, if I >> want to mount the share from my laptop, (the way it is now), long as I >> remember the shared directory names and IP addresses, I will be able to >> connect to them as well. (We often share photos from holiday and >> vacation trips that we enjoy together.) > > >Er, I've got various shared dirs that all users can access, and user- >specific ones that are private to that user across the network. > >I also have the (user's) network login semi-automated, where anything a >user has on any network machine is mounted up on single network login. > >On each machine, each user has their various data collections (on various >partitions) clearly named (/USERDATA/username), and a .hidden file is >regenerated identifying those resources on each boot, which is used as a >user's sshfs "get this and mount these" LAN-access auto-mount list. nfs does that automagically with only /etc/fstab entries. For example, here each slackware box has these two entries in /etc/fstab: deltree:/home/common /home/common nfs hard,intr deltree:/home/mirror /home/mirror nfs noauto,user,hard,intr The common area is writable and is also shared on cifs so windoze can see it. The mirror directory is an ro export mainly for install source so any machine can be installed or upgraded over nfs. Machine 'deltree' is always on. > >I only have my ssh port open on any machine, and then only to the local >LAN, and I can do everything I did before with NFS. The only thing I've >needed to line up is user's ID numbers, and now I've established my own >"best working practice" on that one, life is much simpler, much more >secure, and easier for everybody. As long as it works for you. Have you benchmarked the performance difference (if any) between nfs and sshfs? > >Not that I'm pushing sshfs as /the/ solution here, but it is a tad more >useful than might be realised by regular NFS users. Well, for me sshfs sounds like a solution for a slightly different problem space. Grant. -- http://bugs.id.au
From: Grant on 20 Jan 2010 15:40 On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:25:08 -0800 (PST), jr4412 <jr4412(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >On 20 Jan, 17:29, Mike Jones <N...(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: >> >> Er, I've got various shared dirs that all users can access, and user- >> specific ones that are private to that user across the network. >> >> I also have the (user's) network login semi-automated, where anything a >> user has on any network machine is mounted up on single network login. > >I wonder, why not use samba? perfect for the above needs. Because samba is chasing a moving, closed source target. Very complex because of that. Got it's uses if you mix Linux and Windows, or refuse to pay exhorbitant license fees for an MSFT server ;) Grant. -- http://bugs.id.au
From: jr4412 on 20 Jan 2010 17:04
On 20 Jan, 20:40, Grant <g_r_a_n...(a)bugsplatter.id.au> wrote: > Because samba is chasing a moving, closed source target. Very complex > because of that. Got it's uses if you mix Linux and Windows, or refuse > to pay exhorbitant license fees for an MSFT server ;) what has religion got to do with it? samba (on slack) is included, free, does the job; agree with the 'complexity' argument. |