Tom Metro wrote:
Before dealing with more ugly workarounds for Samba, if you're not required to run it, you might want to consider NFS or sshfs instead. You can't beat the security model for sshfs, if that matters to you, and it
I submit that the OpenAFS security model beats the sshfs security model. The client-side caching mechanism blows both sshfs and NFS performance out of the water. The convenience of having an entire cell available under /afs/${site} really can't be beat.
OpenAFS requires significant effort to set up and maintain whereas sshfs just requires sshd and some FUSE modules.
But I agree with Tom's sentiment: hacking SMB/CIFS isn't worth it outside of Windows shops that require SMB for whatever reasons.
-- Rich P. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
