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

[Peter Belew]

Oh, I'd forgotten about MS Services for Unix - and I have a disk sitting
a couple of feet away, long forgotten! I didn't know it had an NFS
client. Anyhow for most purposes SAMBA is fine with me, but
there is the issue of how to configure it properly ... and deal with
passwords and possibly diddle with strange registry settings,
etc.

Peter

On 10/28/06, Matt Thrailkill <mthrailk at ucsc.edu> wrote:
> 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
>