[SlugLUG] Best remote FS for windows/linux/mac?

[Karl Young]

Thanks everyone for the feedback.  I think I'll enable NFS and get one
Linux client working, then see how it works out with a Windows client.

I have to admit "Microsoft Servies for Unix" sounds a little scary.
Kind of like "Darth Vader's guide for Rebels."

Maybe I'll enable Samba also and do some comparisons, just for fun.

-karl

Matt Thrailkill(mthrailk at ucsc.edu)@2006.10.28 18:31:00 -0700:
> You have to installer Microsoft's Services for Unix to be able to
> mount/export nfs shares from Windows.  The most recent version they have
> made free now.  It still isn't that easy to use.  I had the hardest time
> mounting nfs with it last time I tried, but I've made it work in the
> past.
> 
> On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 18:28 -0700, cerise at armory.com wrote:
> > It's kind of a wash.  SMB can do them OK, but you have to muck around
> > with their password file and map UIDs and so on.  That alone makes it lose
> > in the easiness battle to me.  With NFS, you edit /etc/exports and restart
> > the daemon.  That's pretty darn easy.
> > 
> > Security's kind of a wash too.  NFS is all host-based access, so it's only
> > as secure as the ability for someone to mount it and get login credentials 
> > for a given UID.  Samba does have more features, but I'm not convinced they
> > make it more secure. 
> > 
> > I had thought that Windows 2k, XP, &c had NFS support built in.  I guess I
> > was wrong.  That would make it unsuitable for Karl's purposes.
> > 
> > -Phil/CERisE
> > 
> > On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 06:04:28PM -0700, Peter Belew wrote:
> > > And of course Windows provides a free client, while one may
> > > have to buy an NFS client for Windows. I haven't had any
> > > reason to go that route recently, so I don't know if there
> > > are free Windows NFS clients.
> > > 
> > > Between *nix systems, though, possibly nfs handles *nix
> > > permissions better?
> > > 
> > > - Peter
> > > 
> > > On 10/28/06, Matt Thrailkill <mthrailk at ucsc.edu> wrote:
> > > > I don't have anything against nfs, I use it at home myself.  I'm just
> > > > saying that some people recommend samba over nfs in any case.  They say
> > > > its more secure, more reliable, more performant, easier, and has more
> > > > options that come in handy.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 16:56 -0700, cerise at armory.com wrote:
> > > > > Why?  What do you have against NFS?
> > > > >
> > > > > I find it to be less of a handful in general.  Also, SMB won't mount Very Large
> > > > > shares (near 1TB or so) for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Phil/CERisE
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 04:25:32PM -0700, Matt Thrailkill wrote:
> > > > > > Samba is probably your best bet.  Some people say that even if it were
> > > > > > all Linux machines installed, Samba would be a better choice than using
> > > > > > say nfs.
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Sluglug mailing list
> > > > > > Sluglug at sluglug.ucsc.edu
> > > > > > http://sluglug.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sluglug
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Sluglug mailing list
> > > > > Sluglug at sluglug.ucsc.edu
> > > > > http://sluglug.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sluglug
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Sluglug mailing list
> > > > Sluglug at sluglug.ucsc.edu
> > > > http://sluglug.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sluglug
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Sluglug mailing list
> > > Sluglug at sluglug.ucsc.edu
> > > http://sluglug.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sluglug
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sluglug mailing list
> > Sluglug at sluglug.ucsc.edu
> > http://sluglug.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sluglug
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sluglug mailing list
> Sluglug at sluglug.ucsc.edu
> http://sluglug.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sluglug