How does modern NFS compare to modern Samba these days? It's been ages since I've had to tinker with either, but back when I was messing around with them, it seemed like Samba had "won" both due...
How does modern NFS compare to modern Samba these days?
It's been ages since I've had to tinker with either, but back when I was messing around with them, it seemed like Samba had "won" both due to the network effects (heh) of Windows clients, plus at least a vibes-based perception based on personal experience that Samba was more reliable and less likely to get wedged or leave files in an indeterminate state.
These days, I try to avoid both due to a gut feeling that trying to model filesystem semantics over a network is inherently problematic and not something that most applications expect. But not having to have touched these technologies in about a half-decade means that my gut feeling might be out of date.
My perception has always been the opposite. NFS was always solid whereas samba has always been hit or miss. Even on windows, even on NT4, I felt their NFS implementation was more reliable than...
My perception has always been the opposite. NFS was always solid whereas samba has always been hit or miss. Even on windows, even on NT4, I felt their NFS implementation was more reliable than SMB. Something about NetBIOS name resolution, I dunno. Working in call centres doing IT support for businesses, I can assure you: still, to this day, no one knows how to successfully and reliably map a network drive, after all these years.
I've never hesitated to map a NFS share in my fstab in linux, whereas smbfs has always been finicky. I dunno. Could just be me.
I used NFS on my local LAN from my NAS due to years and years of administering NIS and NFS on a heterogenous setup of Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Dynix/ptx, DRS/nx and Linux clients. My world was forever...
I used NFS on my local LAN from my NAS due to years and years of administering NIS and NFS on a heterogenous setup of Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Dynix/ptx, DRS/nx and Linux clients. My world was forever filled with joy and happiness.
A few years ago though, I switched to Samba on my lan because it was just easier. The morass of NFSv3, v4, access permissions and whatnot was becoming intolerably complex.
I'm slowly deprecating out the use of SAMBA in favour of WebDAV these days, as most of my important storage is now remote, on a DAV server.
Edit: Just as I wrote this, I realise it was likely the NIS that was holding back the tide of permissions issues from my old admin days. That came with its own set of problems though, oh boy did it. NIS maps, primary and secondary servers will haunt my death.
Still though, it unified the UID and GIDs over so many systems, home directories were mounted etc. It all worked.
Remove the NIS though, and the permissions go to pot faster than a rat up a rhododendron.
How does modern NFS compare to modern Samba these days?
It's been ages since I've had to tinker with either, but back when I was messing around with them, it seemed like Samba had "won" both due to the network effects (heh) of Windows clients, plus at least a vibes-based perception based on personal experience that Samba was more reliable and less likely to get wedged or leave files in an indeterminate state.
These days, I try to avoid both due to a gut feeling that trying to model filesystem semantics over a network is inherently problematic and not something that most applications expect. But not having to have touched these technologies in about a half-decade means that my gut feeling might be out of date.
My perception has always been the opposite. NFS was always solid whereas samba has always been hit or miss. Even on windows, even on NT4, I felt their NFS implementation was more reliable than SMB. Something about NetBIOS name resolution, I dunno. Working in call centres doing IT support for businesses, I can assure you: still, to this day, no one knows how to successfully and reliably map a network drive, after all these years.
I've never hesitated to map a NFS share in my fstab in linux, whereas smbfs has always been finicky. I dunno. Could just be me.
I used NFS on my local LAN from my NAS due to years and years of administering NIS and NFS on a heterogenous setup of Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Dynix/ptx, DRS/nx and Linux clients. My world was forever filled with joy and happiness.
A few years ago though, I switched to Samba on my lan because it was just easier. The morass of NFSv3, v4, access permissions and whatnot was becoming intolerably complex.
I'm slowly deprecating out the use of SAMBA in favour of WebDAV these days, as most of my important storage is now remote, on a DAV server.
Edit: Just as I wrote this, I realise it was likely the NIS that was holding back the tide of permissions issues from my old admin days. That came with its own set of problems though, oh boy did it. NIS maps, primary and secondary servers will haunt my death.
Still though, it unified the UID and GIDs over so many systems, home directories were mounted etc. It all worked.
Remove the NIS though, and the permissions go to pot faster than a rat up a rhododendron.