nfs
in [Slackware]
|
From: Mike Jones on 20 Jan 2010 17:59 Responding to Grant: > 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. Now firewall everything, making sure that WinBox can't do any damage too. Mwu-hahaha! >:) Seriously though, one of the goals I had was to ENSURE nothing could even see things if it didn't have my designed express permissions to do so. This included blocking any chance relatives might feel tempted to jack their M$ infested internet-seeking WLAN-sniffing laptops into my LAN for giggles while I'm not looking. This might be overkill for some, but for me its best working practice. sshfs does everything I want it to to, including not doing things I don't want it to do, and it does this relatively simply. Of course, YMMV -- *=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ *=( For all your UK news needs.
From: Mike Jones on 20 Jan 2010 17:59 Responding to jr4412: > 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. Nope, its not. More complex processes, needs more setting up, doesn't take advantage of ssh, risk of allowing M$ boxen access, etc. I can see that what I'm seeing as a "good thing" with regard to nailing things down hard with sshfs, might be seen as a disadvantage to others. The key point for me is the simplicity of associating ssh with fuse and using an existing encrypted networking function to create LAN mounts for users without needing anything else, like Samba, NFS, etc. No multiport shinanigans, just one single firewalled ssh port. Simples! :) -- *=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ *=( For all your UK news needs.
From: Henrik Carlqvist on 21 Jan 2010 02:03 jr4412 <jr4412(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > 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. I don't see any religous arguments above. I agree that Samba is great when you have a Linux server and Windows clients, it is by far more useful than trying to install something like MS Unix services for Windows on the clients to run NFS. Cifs might also be a good last resort when you have Linux clients and only have a share available from a Windows server. However in an environment with a Linux server and Linux clients I would really prefer NFS. With NFS you will get full support for all your users uids and chmods, symbolic links will work without any hassle and you don't have to worry about putting usernames and passwords for shares in fstab your your automount maps. regards Henrik -- The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is: hc3(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers: root(a)localhost postmaster(a)localhost
From: Helmut Hullen on 21 Jan 2010 02:25 Hallo, Henrik, Du meintest am 21.01.10: > I don't see any religous arguments above. I agree that Samba is great > when you have a Linux server and Windows clients, it is by far more > useful than trying to install something like MS Unix services for > Windows on the clients to run NFS. I agree too ... > Cifs might also be a good last resort when you have Linux clients and > only have a share available from a Windows server. No - cifs is the better solution for Linux clients too. Many colleagues in many schools have learned that; Linux Server which offers NFS and Samba, clients which run Windows or Linux. Cifs is a (small) bit slower than perfectly running nfs, but NFS has more problems, and then it runs slower, or it creeps, or it hangs. And authentification is more reliable with cifs than with nfs/yp. > However in an environment with a Linux server and Linux clients I > would really prefer NFS. With NFS you will get full support for all > your users uids and chmods, symbolic links will work without any > hassle and you don't have to worry about putting usernames and > passwords for shares in fstab your your automount maps. In my home LAN I prefer NFS (from linux to linux), but even here I've seen som problems. Viele Gruesse Helmut "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
From: Eef Hartman on 21 Jan 2010 07:36
Helmut Hullen <Helmut(a)hullen.de> wrote: > No - cifs is the better solution for Linux clients too. > Many colleagues in many schools have learned that; Linux Server which > offers NFS and Samba, clients which run Windows or Linux. Here the situation is: home dir server runs Linux (Red Hat Enterprise 5), client run Linux (openSUSE or SLED), connection is through smb with kerberos authentication. This worked reasonably well with Firefox 2.0 and samba 3.0, but with the newer releases (firefox 3.x, samba 3.2) firefox cannot access its profile anymore, so SLED (and openSUSE 11.x) clients can NOT use firefox anymore (konqueror still works). The home dir server now will be replaced by a (NFS 4) NAS storage system, hopefully the problems will be over with that. But until that time my (openSUSE 11.1) system has its home dir on "our own" server, Linux CentOS, accessed through NFS 3 and autofs, because otherwise I cannot work (and no, NFS 3 to the home dir server is NOT an option the BackOffice offers or is willing to implement). -- ******************************************************************* ** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. SSC/ICT ** ** e-mail: E.J.M.Hartman(a)tudelft.nl - phone: +31-15-278 82525 ** ******************************************************************* |