Ben,
NFS is really easy... after youve done it once... You will ofcourse need
the servers installed and running, this varies depending on your distro...
rpm the necessary files, compile the files, apt-get the files, ...) your
configuration for your exports (kinda like shares in windows) are in one file
(/etc/exports ??), and when you use an exported fs from another system, you
use mount (just like mounting a local file system)... Its been a while since
Ive done any nfs... but it only took about 1/2 to read/install/mount my first
nfs. It was quite rewarding, and not much work :)
Jamie
On Wednesday 14 November 2001 07:47, you wrote:
> Larry, sounds like you got a Plan 9 up your sleeve? Are there any
> peer-to-peer networks implemented on it yet??
> On another note, it appears to me that Samba is indeed case-sensitive --
> is something tricking me into believing that?
> And finally, Seth spake of the difficulty in using NFS when Winbloze
> boxen be involved;
> are there no (worthy) NFS clients? I've used X-Win Pro (to provide X11
> on win32), and I noticed it starts up an NFS share by default... I'll
> play with it and see. I've never configured NFS, though.
> Any tips?
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
> larry a price wrote:
> >Why don't we all just agree to use a persistent distributed object
> >protocol that would transparently replicate public data to every host
> >within the trust boundary, then we could have all sorts of intriguing
> >stuff like, data that would become public only if an admin approved it,
> >data objects that would only copy themselves to hosts where their owner
> >had an account data that would refuse to copy itself to more than X hosts
> >at a time. Of course entropy works in the direction of making everything
> >either publicly available or hopelessly corrupted -- or both.
> >hmmph sounds almost like a basic law of the universe there.
> >
> >http://www.efn.org/~laprice ( Community, Cooperation, Consensus
> >http://www.opn.org ( Openness to serendipity, make
> > mistakes http://www.efn.org/~laprice/poems ( but learn from them.(carpe
> > fructus ludi)
> > http://allie.office.efn.org/phpwiki/index.php?OregonPublicNetworking
> >
> >On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Linux Rocks ! wrote:
> >>The biggest difference you will notice is performance! NFS performs much
> >>better than windows file sharing too. It seems like its just part of your
> >>filesystem... Pat might have some other options too.. I think he
> >> mentioned afs? or some other network filesystem that sounded somehow
> >> more apealing than nfs.
> >>
> >>Jamie
> >>
> >>On Sunday 11 November 2001 09:58, you wrote:
> >>>If you're exporting a filesystem from one *nix box to another *nix box
> >>>(no Windows), which works better, NFS or Samba? It seems to me that
> >>>NFS is the right choice, because it supports native Unix filesystem
> >>>semantics.
> >>>
> >>>Specifically, NFS:
> >>>
> >>> understands that filenames are case-dependent
> >>>
> >>> understands symbolic links
> >>>
> >>> understands Unix permissions
> >>>
> >>> does file locking
> >>>
> >>> even understands that unlink(2) doesn't delete the file until
> >>> the last open reference is closed.
> >>>
> >>>AFAIK, Samba doesn't do any of those right, because its primary job is
> >>>to interface with Redmond Brain Damage. But I don't know much about
> >>>Samba. Somebody tell me I'm wrong.
> >>>
> >>>Does Samba have any security advantage over NFS? Both send file
> >>>contents over the net in cleartext, don't they? Both can be easily
> >>>spoofed by someone who's sniffing packets, can't they?
> >>>
> >>>Jim Darrough recently asked me about sharing a file system between two
> >>>Linux boxen, and I told him how to set it up using NFS. He said that
> >>>Seth had recommended Samba. So I ask you guys, "Why Samba?"
