Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On Lu, 06 iun 11, 01:02:18, William Hopkins wrote: > On 06/05/11 at 03:59pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > On Sb, 04 iun 11, 22:56:19, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > > > (I'd suggest that you give static IP addresses to your desktop > > > machines and use the /etc/hosts file -- yes, even Windows has one -- > > > to give your machines permanent symbolic names. Makes things easier > > > that way.) > > > > If you're lucky the wireless router supports this (out-of-the box or > > with an upgrade to DD-WRT) ;) > > This makes no sense to me. Using static IPs doesn't involve your > router. Use them or not, it won't care (or know). If your "router" supports assigning a specific IP per MAC and, possibly even DNS names, then you have all your configuration centralised ;) Ok, for accessing other computers on the lan by name I now use mDNS, and even if my VDSL modem lost the ability to assign specific IPs, at least it uses the same IP for the same MAC, so it is possible to configure the port forwarding. Even if it works, I still don't like to rely on all that fully automatic configuration, so I'm looking forward to buying a new wireless router (with Gigabit and wireless N, I already have a "classic" one) that supports DD-WRT (or similar). Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On Du, 05 iun 11, 10:09:33, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 06/05/2011 07:59 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > >On Sb, 04 iun 11, 22:56:19, Ron Johnson wrote: > >> > >>(I'd suggest that you give static IP addresses to your desktop > >>machines and use the /etc/hosts file -- yes, even Windows has one -- > >>to give your machines permanent symbolic names. Makes things easier > >>that way.) > > > >If you're lucky the wireless router supports this (out-of-the box or > >with an upgrade to DD-WRT) ;) > > > > Are most wireless routers that limited? I was addressing the "to give your machines permanent symbolic names" part ;) > I'm still using the stock firmware on a WRT54GL and it allows me to > set the DHCP IP address assignment range. It was, I think, from 1 - > 100 but I changed it to 100 - 150. Yes, this feature is quite common in my experience (though I lost the ability to assign specific IPs per MAC on a firmware upgrade of my VDSL modem). Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/06/11 at 07:53am, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:02 AM, William Hopkins wrote: > > On 06/05/11 at 03:59pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > >> On Sb, 04 iun 11, 22:56:19, Ron Johnson wrote: > >> > > >> > (I'd suggest that you give static IP addresses to your desktop > >> > machines and use the /etc/hosts file -- yes, even Windows has one -- > >> > to give your machines permanent symbolic names. Makes things easier > >> > that way.) > >> > >> If you're lucky the wireless router supports this (out-of-the box or > >> with an upgrade to DD-WRT) ;) > > > > This makes no sense to me. Using static IPs doesn't involve your router. > > Use them or not, it won't care (or know). > > Most wireless and wired "routers" for home use include DHCP servers to > support NAT behind them, and have for many years. DHCP support is unrelated, as we're talking about static IPs. > Those support DHCP reservations. And the static addresses have to be behind > the NAT, or served by the gateway directly. So yes, it cares that you use > any IP addresses and whether they're correctly assigned to "non-routable" > address ranges and LAN's and with the correct gateway to tallk to the > "router". No, it doesn't. Use whatever you want behind the 'router'. It neither knows nor cares. You do have to set the router's internal IP to something that the clients can reach and configure it as the default gateway for internet gatewaying to take place, but that is the only stipulation. And setting an IP is supported on *ALL* home routers/gateways. -- Liam signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Samba or NFS
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 16:03 -0400, Dan wrote: > > I think that sshfs is a file system oriented to the user, and NFS can > be used for many users. NFS should be more robust if there are many > users connected. > > Moreover, with sshfs each user will have to mount his folder and enter > his password. With nfs you can establish a permanent link that can be > used by all the users. Duh! Sorry for the brain cramp and thanks for catching me on it. Of course, the whole question is about multi-user access. And I'm not a coffee drinker so I don't even have that excuse! - John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1307392952.6630.39.ca...@denise.theartistscloset.com
Re: Samba or NFS
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:32 PM, John A. Sullivan III wrote: > On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 14:51 -0400, Dan wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Simon Brandmair wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On 3/6/2011 19:50 Axel Freyn wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> For NFSv4 this has changed. You can use NFSv4 in different modes. The >> >>> easy one has the same problem. >> > >> > NFSv4 is a giant pain in the keister, not worth the headaches. The >> > NFSv4 access published from an actual Linux or other NFSv4 capable >> > service can be published, it can be passed along via Samba to CIFS >> > clients, but the CIFS clients cannot *see* or manipulate the NFSv4 >> > permissions due to incompatibilities between thee two ownership >> > models, and due to the Samba code for this being "spaghetti code". >> > (http://samba.2283325.n4.nabble.com/viewing-if-not-editing-NFSv4-ACL-s-from-Samba-shares-td2417666.html). >> > >> > Overall, NFSv4 has proven itself destabilizing and useless in small >> > and large environments. It takes a significant investment in complex >> > infrastructure, and the security benefits have proven to be illusory >> > in the face of clients who *insist* on making their home directories >> > publicly accessible, clients who use password free SSH keys, or >> > clients who store passwords in source controlled software with no >> > access control. (I've run into all of these in environments that spent >> > useless years pursuing the "security" of NFSv4 and ignoring gaping >> > holes in infrastructure security.) >> >> Yes, I read the documentation for Kerberos and it seems to be too >> complicated. I think that it is an overkill to connect to computers. >> In my case the LAN is the whole University and it is very easy to >> spoof an IP, I checked that. So NFSv3 might not be such a good idea. >> >> How about NFSv3 over a ssh tunnel? That should be easy to implement. I >> compared the transfer of a file of 700Mb between scp (encrypted) and >> samba not encrypted, and the result is: >> -scp: 38 seconds, and 25% of overhead in one of the 4 cores of the computer >> -samba: 18 seconds and no overhead >> >> So in my case I think it can be acceptable to do a ssh tunnel as most >> of the times most of the cores of the computer are not used and there >> is not a big traffic of data. Are there other disadvantages of using a >> ssh tunnel? > > Hmm . . . if you are going to go that route, how about sshfs? Again, I > don't know a great deal about it but that is how we transfer files > securely in the X2Go remote desktop project (www.x2go.org) - John > > I think that sshfs is a file system oriented to the user, and NFS can be used for many users. NFS should be more robust if there are many users connected. Moreover, with sshfs each user will have to mount his folder and enter his password. With nfs you can establish a permanent link that can be used by all the users. Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlkting3sc8kpyf9typzrymxagk+p7...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Samba or NFS
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 14:51 -0400, Dan wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Simon Brandmair wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 3/6/2011 19:50 Axel Freyn wrote: > >> [...] > >>> For NFSv4 this has changed. You can use NFSv4 in different modes. The > >>> easy one has the same problem. > > > > NFSv4 is a giant pain in the keister, not worth the headaches. The > > NFSv4 access published from an actual Linux or other NFSv4 capable > > service can be published, it can be passed along via Samba to CIFS > > clients, but the CIFS clients cannot *see* or manipulate the NFSv4 > > permissions due to incompatibilities between thee two ownership > > models, and due to the Samba code for this being "spaghetti code". > > (http://samba.2283325.n4.nabble.com/viewing-if-not-editing-NFSv4-ACL-s-from-Samba-shares-td2417666.html). > > > > Overall, NFSv4 has proven itself destabilizing and useless in small > > and large environments. It takes a significant investment in complex > > infrastructure, and the security benefits have proven to be illusory > > in the face of clients who *insist* on making their home directories > > publicly accessible, clients who use password free SSH keys, or > > clients who store passwords in source controlled software with no > > access control. (I've run into all of these in environments that spent > > useless years pursuing the "security" of NFSv4 and ignoring gaping > > holes in infrastructure security.) > > Yes, I read the documentation for Kerberos and it seems to be too > complicated. I think that it is an overkill to connect to computers. > In my case the LAN is the whole University and it is very easy to > spoof an IP, I checked that. So NFSv3 might not be such a good idea. > > How about NFSv3 over a ssh tunnel? That should be easy to implement. I > compared the transfer of a file of 700Mb between scp (encrypted) and > samba not encrypted, and the result is: > -scp: 38 seconds, and 25% of overhead in one of the 4 cores of the computer > -samba: 18 seconds and no overhead > > So in my case I think it can be acceptable to do a ssh tunnel as most > of the times most of the cores of the computer are not used and there > is not a big traffic of data. Are there other disadvantages of using a > ssh tunnel? Hmm . . . if you are going to go that route, how about sshfs? Again, I don't know a great deal about it but that is how we transfer files securely in the X2Go remote desktop project (www.x2go.org) - John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1307388748.6630.36.ca...@denise.theartistscloset.com
Re: Samba or NFS
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Simon Brandmair wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 3/6/2011 19:50 Axel Freyn wrote: >> [...] >>> For NFSv4 this has changed. You can use NFSv4 in different modes. The >>> easy one has the same problem. > > NFSv4 is a giant pain in the keister, not worth the headaches. The > NFSv4 access published from an actual Linux or other NFSv4 capable > service can be published, it can be passed along via Samba to CIFS > clients, but the CIFS clients cannot *see* or manipulate the NFSv4 > permissions due to incompatibilities between thee two ownership > models, and due to the Samba code for this being "spaghetti code". > (http://samba.2283325.n4.nabble.com/viewing-if-not-editing-NFSv4-ACL-s-from-Samba-shares-td2417666.html). > > Overall, NFSv4 has proven itself destabilizing and useless in small > and large environments. It takes a significant investment in complex > infrastructure, and the security benefits have proven to be illusory > in the face of clients who *insist* on making their home directories > publicly accessible, clients who use password free SSH keys, or > clients who store passwords in source controlled software with no > access control. (I've run into all of these in environments that spent > useless years pursuing the "security" of NFSv4 and ignoring gaping > holes in infrastructure security.) Yes, I read the documentation for Kerberos and it seems to be too complicated. I think that it is an overkill to connect to computers. In my case the LAN is the whole University and it is very easy to spoof an IP, I checked that. So NFSv3 might not be such a good idea. How about NFSv3 over a ssh tunnel? That should be easy to implement. I compared the transfer of a file of 700Mb between scp (encrypted) and samba not encrypted, and the result is: -scp: 38 seconds, and 25% of overhead in one of the 4 cores of the computer -samba: 18 seconds and no overhead So in my case I think it can be acceptable to do a ssh tunnel as most of the times most of the cores of the computer are not used and there is not a big traffic of data. Are there other disadvantages of using a ssh tunnel? Thanks, Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=wi6wnaxawuwgzsvwp6bqxgid...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:02 AM, William Hopkins wrote: > On 06/05/11 at 03:59pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote: >> On Sb, 04 iun 11, 22:56:19, Ron Johnson wrote: >> > >> > (I'd suggest that you give static IP addresses to your desktop >> > machines and use the /etc/hosts file -- yes, even Windows has one -- >> > to give your machines permanent symbolic names. Makes things easier >> > that way.) >> >> If you're lucky the wireless router supports this (out-of-the box or >> with an upgrade to DD-WRT) ;) > > This makes no sense to me. Using static IPs doesn't involve your router. Use > them or not, it won't care (or know). Most wireless and wired "routers" for home use include DHCP servers to support NAT behind them, and have for many years. Those support DHCP reservations. And the static addresses have to be behind the NAT, or served by the gateway directly. So yes, it cares that you use any IP addresses and whether they're correctly assigned to "non-routable" address ranges and LAN's and with the correct gateway to tallk to the "router". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTikWsfF6bTrZ82m-sqk=-kgra__...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/05/11 at 03:59pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Sb, 04 iun 11, 22:56:19, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > (I'd suggest that you give static IP addresses to your desktop > > machines and use the /etc/hosts file -- yes, even Windows has one -- > > to give your machines permanent symbolic names. Makes things easier > > that way.) > > If you're lucky the wireless router supports this (out-of-the box or > with an upgrade to DD-WRT) ;) This makes no sense to me. Using static IPs doesn't involve your router. Use them or not, it won't care (or know). -- Liam signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Samba or NFS
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Simon Brandmair wrote: > Hi, > > On 3/6/2011 19:50 Axel Freyn wrote: > [...] >> For NFSv4 this has changed. You can use NFSv4 in different modes. The >> easy one has the same problem. NFSv4 is a giant pain in the keister, not worth the headaches. The NFSv4 access published from an actual Linux or other NFSv4 capable service can be published, it can be passed along via Samba to CIFS clients, but the CIFS clients cannot *see* or manipulate the NFSv4 permissions due to incompatibilities between thee two ownership models, and due to the Samba code for this being "spaghetti code". (http://samba.2283325.n4.nabble.com/viewing-if-not-editing-NFSv4-ACL-s-from-Samba-shares-td2417666.html). Overall, NFSv4 has proven itself destabilizing and useless in small and large environments. It takes a significant investment in complex infrastructure, and the security benefits have proven to be illusory in the face of clients who *insist* on making their home directories publicly accessible, clients who use password free SSH keys, or clients who store passwords in source controlled software with no access control. (I've run into all of these in environments that spent useless years pursuing the "security" of NFSv4 and ignoring gaping holes in infrastructure security.) >> However, you can switch on strong authentification (based on Kerberos), >> then it's safe (the server verifies that the client has the correct >> Kerberos-token of this user -- UID is not sufficient), and even ask to >> sign all transfers (to block man-in-the-middle-attacks which could >> change the commands sent to the server) and encryption (to protect data >> privacy). >> >> However, it's much more work to install, as you also need a full >> Kerberos-setup > > I haven't looked at all into Kerberos, but sort of considering it. So I > was wondering, if it is worth (or even just work) when I just have a > server client network and no extra kerberos server? Or is Kerberos > rendered useless if I let it run on the same server that hosts the nfs > server? > > Cheers, > Simon The problem isn't getting it up and running. It's getting people to actually use it. It's sensitive to time drift on the servers and clients, and getting people configured with NTP correctly is only a tiny part of the battle. For a hundred accounts? I can see it. For half a dozen people in a small office? Unlikely to be worth it. >From another part of the thread: I've used openAFS, including porting it and Kerberos to SunOS way the heck back in antiquity. (Whose bright flipping idea was it to make Kerberos require a fully qualified hostname as the first entry in /etc/hosts for your IP address rather than the short name, to make compilation fail if it wasn't, and to set a timestamp so that the compilation had to *start over from the beginning? Actually, I think I know, and I've gotten private vengeance for this.) Debian's leading edge packaging and integration testing should make them both vastly easier. You're stuck with policy decisions in setup that can be subtle and awkward. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktimigeubaqf-l09pced7k72thqw...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 06/05/2011 07:59 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: >> >> On Sb, 04 iun 11, 22:56:19, Ron Johnson wrote: >>> >>> (I'd suggest that you give static IP addresses to your desktop >>> machines and use the /etc/hosts file -- yes, even Windows has one -- >>> to give your machines permanent symbolic names. Makes things easier >>> that way.) >> >> If you're lucky the wireless router supports this (out-of-the box or >> with an upgrade to DD-WRT) ;) >> > > Are most wireless routers that limited? > > I'm still using the stock firmware on a WRT54GL and it allows me to set the > DHCP IP address assignment range. It was, I think, from 1 - 100 but I > changed it to 100 - 150. Most models also support DHCP reservations, to get the IP addresses set consistently and not have to manually manipulate the network on your clients. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktikloexl94dlfqlrydscqyvk86z...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/05/2011 07:59 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: On Sb, 04 iun 11, 22:56:19, Ron Johnson wrote: (I'd suggest that you give static IP addresses to your desktop machines and use the /etc/hosts file -- yes, even Windows has one -- to give your machines permanent symbolic names. Makes things easier that way.) If you're lucky the wireless router supports this (out-of-the box or with an upgrade to DD-WRT) ;) Are most wireless routers that limited? I'm still using the stock firmware on a WRT54GL and it allows me to set the DHCP IP address assignment range. It was, I think, from 1 - 100 but I changed it to 100 - 150. -- "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel Adams, essay in The Public Advertiser, 1749 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4deb9c2d.8060...@cox.net
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On Sb, 04 iun 11, 22:56:19, Ron Johnson wrote: > > (I'd suggest that you give static IP addresses to your desktop > machines and use the /etc/hosts file -- yes, even Windows has one -- > to give your machines permanent symbolic names. Makes things easier > that way.) If you're lucky the wireless router supports this (out-of-the box or with an upgrade to DD-WRT) ;) Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Samba or NFS
2011/6/4 John A. Sullivan III > On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 15:27 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > Boy have we really digressed on this thread! If anyone objects, please > say so and I'll spawn another one. > > To digress a little more... I'm planning a network share for unison backup, some other discrete backup and media share, maybe with some virtualization to come, and found the pNFS project (NFS 4.1): this seems experimental, exp. on the client side ( http://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/PNFS_prototype_design), is that true? on the debian side? And found 2 that i sould go for openAFS... nobody experienced that on debian? Particularly on a encrypted dm-luks/LVM system? Thanks, Pier Paolo.
Re: Samba or NFS
Hi, On 3/6/2011 19:50 Axel Freyn wrote: [...] > For NFSv4 this has changed. You can use NFSv4 in different modes. The > easy one has the same problem. > However, you can switch on strong authentification (based on Kerberos), > then it's safe (the server verifies that the client has the correct > Kerberos-token of this user -- UID is not sufficient), and even ask to > sign all transfers (to block man-in-the-middle-attacks which could > change the commands sent to the server) and encryption (to protect data > privacy). > > However, it's much more work to install, as you also need a full > Kerberos-setup I haven't looked at all into Kerberos, but sort of considering it. So I was wondering, if it is worth (or even just work) when I just have a server client network and no extra kerberos server? Or is Kerberos rendered useless if I let it run on the same server that hosts the nfs server? Cheers, Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/isfiqp$hsn$1...@news.albasani.net
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/04/2011 06:21 PM, Doug wrote: On 06/04/2011 02:53 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/04/2011 01:31 AM, Doug wrote: [snip] I opened the suggested url, and read the following intro: "*Reader Prerequisites*: To get the most from this article, understand the following concepts before reading: basic unix command line tools, text editors, DNS, TCP/IP, DHCP, netmask, gateway" I'm not afraid of command line tools and I can use nano or pico, or mc (yes, I've been around What do you current use to configure networking in Linux? (You must get to the Internet somehow...) I have a router with ethernet connections from each machine. (Or wireless, if the laptop is not wired in.) The router connects to a cable modem, and off we go. It is even possible to connect two machines to the internet at once--one playing streaming audio from a radio station in Texas, and one downloading or uploading email, or Googling. Nobody ever told me it was impossible, so I just do it. Or, since all the machines are multi-tasking, it's possible to Google while listening to music on the same machine. (I normally use the main Linux machine for email and net searching, and the Win 7 machine for music, since its sound card is output to a hi-fi system. If I want to do any serious writing, I use the Windows machine with WordPerfect on it. No M/S or M/S clone comes close.) So, as William says, you *do* have successfully implemented a LAN in your apartment. What you now need is "File And Print Sharing". Since the printer is plugged into the Win7 machine, Samba is your only choice. (I'd suggest that you give static IP addresses to your desktop machines and use the /etc/hosts file -- yes, even Windows has one -- to give your machines permanent symbolic names. Makes things easier that way.) -- "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel Adams, essay in The Public Advertiser, 1749 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4deafe63.7070...@cox.net
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/04/11 at 07:21pm, Doug wrote: > On 06/04/2011 02:53 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: > >On 06/04/2011 01:31 AM, Doug wrote: > >[snip] > >>I opened the suggested url, and read the following intro: "*Reader > >>Prerequisites*: To get the most from this > >>article, understand the following concepts before reading: basic unix > >>command line tools, text editors, > >>DNS, TCP/IP, DHCP, netmask, gateway" > >> > >>I'm not afraid of command line tools and I can use nano or pico, or mc > >>(yes, I've been around > > > >What do you current use to configure networking in Linux? (You > >must get to the Internet somehow...) > > > I have a router with ethernet connections from each machine. (Or > wireless, if the laptop is not wired in.) For future reference, this means you *do* have a network set up. Contrary to what you said before.. -- Liam signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/04/2011 02:53 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/04/2011 01:31 AM, Doug wrote: [snip] I opened the suggested url, and read the following intro: "*Reader Prerequisites*: To get the most from this article, understand the following concepts before reading: basic unix command line tools, text editors, DNS, TCP/IP, DHCP, netmask, gateway" I'm not afraid of command line tools and I can use nano or pico, or mc (yes, I've been around What do you current use to configure networking in Linux? (You must get to the Internet somehow...) I have a router with ethernet connections from each machine. (Or wireless, if the laptop is not wired in.) The router connects to a cable modem, and off we go. It is even possible to connect two machines to the internet at once--one playing streaming audio from a radio station in Texas, and one downloading or uploading email, or Googling. Nobody ever told me it was impossible, so I just do it. Or, since all the machines are multi-tasking, it's possible to Google while listening to music on the same machine. (I normally use the main Linux machine for email and net searching, and the Win 7 machine for music, since its sound card is output to a hi-fi system. If I want to do any serious writing, I use the Windows machine with WordPerfect on it. No M/S or M/S clone comes close.) --doug -- Blessed are the peacekeepers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4deabe08.2010...@optonline.net
Re: Samba or NFS
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 15:27 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:33 PM, John A. Sullivan III > File ownership is a constant confusion between the two basic systems. > *DO NOT* try to manage the same file server and accessing its material > with the two different protocols. I've been this route, the claims of > "just set this" are generally complete handwaving, and cleaning up > when they break down can be a nightmare. I've been down this route > with Linux and UNIX and Windows file servers and NetApps, and I don't > recommend doing multiple access for *any* of them. > > And don't get me *started* on the iSCSI pain, sorrow, and blood in the > streets.. > > Boy have we really digressed on this thread! If anyone objects, please say so and I'll spawn another one. I'm glad you mentioned trying to run both protocols against the same file system. IF we go the NAS (presenting a remote file system as a remote file system - to define terms) rather than the SAN (presenting a remote file system as a block device) route, being able to access the same data on the NAS via both protocols would solve a big headache for us (Windows and Linux users both needing read/write access to the same data). Has anyone been able to successfully do this? Otherwise, we will probably use SAMBA rather than have to license NFS services on Windows (not sure if that's still a separate license). I'm also curious to see how others have dealt with iSCSI. That set back our entire company launch by five months as we fought ISCSI / Linux file system issues until we realized the problem was the 4KB block size limitation in Linux. Because each iSCSI block needs to be acknowledged, with only 4KB blocks, latency becomes the bottleneck rather than bandwidth, i.e., 4KB of data comes nowhere close to saturating the network. Thus, the maximum iSCSI throughput becomes 4KB/(round trip latency), e.g., 100 microsecond round trip latency limits throughput to 4KB/.0001 = 40MBps. To make matters worse for us, we are using Nexenta as a SAN. It's a brilliant idea of using ZFS for a back end but it runs on OpenSolaris and the network stack is much slower than Linux. We are eagerly waiting for BTRFS to mature as we suspect we will see a 30% to 80% increase in throughput by moving to Linux based SANs. In any event, has anyone found a way around this iSCSI 4KB problem for Linux file I/O? And to restate the earlier question, has anyone truly resolved the issues of running SAMBA and NFS against the same back end Linux file system? Thanks. Very helpful thread - John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1307220947.20855.29.ca...@denise.theartistscloset.com
Re: Samba or NFS
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:33 PM, John A. Sullivan III wrote: > On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 23:08 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Dan wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I have two linux servers. One file server (debian) that is running >> > samba and one application server (redhat). I would like to mount the >> > shares of the file server in the application server. The problem is >> > that the usernames are very different. Samba is already running and >> > easier to set-up. NFS seems to be more difficult to set-up and also >> > there are more security issues. >> > >> > Which are the advantages of NFS over Samba (cifs) other than the >> > symbolic links. I read that even some people prefer samba over NFS to >> > connect Unix to Unix. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Dan >> >> CIFS clients mishandle mixed case filenames, such as 'file.txt", >> "FILE.txt", and "FILE.TXT". They also have a massively different idea >> of how file ownership and privileges work than the POSIX standards >> built into most UNIX and Linux native filesystems. And while I very >> much applaud the work of the Samba team for providing this >> cross-compatibility tool, it performs like a *dog* compared to NFS, >> AFS, ZFS, or the other more powerful network based fileysstems. >> >> NFS needs some attention to security: so does CIFS. But most of the >> complexities CIFS does more trivilally, such as mixed group ownership, >> can be resolved with tools built into NFS such as "netgroups" suport. >> And holy moley, but the speed of simple network operations like >> Subversion checkouts is *grotesquely* faster under NFS. >> >> > Interesting and helpful. I was always under the impression that NFS was > oodles faster than CIFS after one adjusted rsize and wsize to something > much larger than the defaults. However, one of our engineers recently > tweaked SAMBA to use similarly large block sizes and it seems to have > narrowed the gap. I did not take the time to actually measure so this > is only anecdotal. Has anyone had any similar or contrary experiences? > - John These are general Linux issues, not Debian specific. That said, It's very usage sensitive. Subversion checkouts on CIFS are ghods-awful slow compared to doing it on NFS. The latest release of subversion allegedly helps with the slow, but not *THAT* slow, performance on local NTFS checkouts, and may help with this issue. File ownership is a constant confusion between the two basic systems. *DO NOT* try to manage the same file server and accessing its material with the two different protocols. I've been this route, the claims of "just set this" are generally complete handwaving, and cleaning up when they break down can be a nightmare. I've been down this route with Linux and UNIX and Windows file servers and NetApps, and I don't recommend doing multiple access for *any* of them. And don't get me *started* on the iSCSI pain, sorrow, and blood in the streets.. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=mSkYzhKHv=ggpbj-zoqorejt...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Samba or NFS
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 23:08 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Dan wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have two linux servers. One file server (debian) that is running > > samba and one application server (redhat). I would like to mount the > > shares of the file server in the application server. The problem is > > that the usernames are very different. Samba is already running and > > easier to set-up. NFS seems to be more difficult to set-up and also > > there are more security issues. > > > > Which are the advantages of NFS over Samba (cifs) other than the > > symbolic links. I read that even some people prefer samba over NFS to > > connect Unix to Unix. > > > > Thanks, > > Dan > > CIFS clients mishandle mixed case filenames, such as 'file.txt", > "FILE.txt", and "FILE.TXT". They also have a massively different idea > of how file ownership and privileges work than the POSIX standards > built into most UNIX and Linux native filesystems. And while I very > much applaud the work of the Samba team for providing this > cross-compatibility tool, it performs like a *dog* compared to NFS, > AFS, ZFS, or the other more powerful network based fileysstems. > > NFS needs some attention to security: so does CIFS. But most of the > complexities CIFS does more trivilally, such as mixed group ownership, > can be resolved with tools built into NFS such as "netgroups" suport. > And holy moley, but the speed of simple network operations like > Subversion checkouts is *grotesquely* faster under NFS. > > Interesting and helpful. I was always under the impression that NFS was oodles faster than CIFS after one adjusted rsize and wsize to something much larger than the defaults. However, one of our engineers recently tweaked SAMBA to use similarly large block sizes and it seems to have narrowed the gap. I did not take the time to actually measure so this is only anecdotal. Has anyone had any similar or contrary experiences? - John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1307208780.20855.8.ca...@denise.theartistscloset.com
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:58 AM, Doug wrote: > On 06/03/2011 11:28 PM, William Hopkins wrote: >> >> On 06/03/11 at 10:02pm, Ron Johnson wrote: >>> >>> On 06/03/2011 11:43 AM, John A. Sullivan III wrote: >>> [snip] NFS is by far simpler to use in pure Linux environment, Samba is for Windows networks. NFS has no passwords, just install it with apt-get, and declare /etc/exports in the server, and mount the shares in the clients /etc/fstab. That's all it takes. >>> Fine for home environments, but shouldn't an office environment use >>> LDAP for coordinated UID/GID sharing? >> > /snip/ > > Not to steal the thread, but those who read this probably are the best to > advise me. I know nothing about networking, but I would like to set up > a peer-to-peer network among a Windows 7 and two Linux machines, one of > which can also be booted to XP. (If one absolutely *must* be a "master" it > must > be the Windows 7 machine.) I assume I would use samba. I don't need any > security--all the machines are mine, here in the house with me, and I live > alone. > What I need is words of one syllable on how to do it. Is there a "Networks > For > Dummies" for me somewhere? > > Thanx--doug Most modern computers can, very reasonably, use dhcp to automatically be configured inside a local network and be able to reach the rest of the computers or the Intenet(tm). I'll assume you've already got your local wireless gateway or "cable router" or "dsl modem" or whatever doing that. First step, make sure you can see the Internet safely from inside your local network. That makes sure you're up and connected. I'm also assuming the IP addresses you're getting are "non-routable" addresses behind a NAT gateway: you can look them up with your network configuration tools. For someone like you unfamiliar with the internals on Linux, you might actually benefit from using the "NetworkManager" tools on your Linux boxes. Verify that the addresses are non-routable, for safety: they'll typically look something like "192.168.1.101". That "192.168" to start means "don't tell people on the Internet about this, hide behind a NAT gateway.) Second step. Tell your gateway to set up DHCP reservations: this stabilizes what IP address each machine gets, so you can hit the same address again and make things work. You can alternatively set up your network configuration smanually, but DHCP can be very handy. Third step. Pick one machine as a file server, say, one Linux box. That will tell you what file sharing protocols are available: Samba to share to Windows, and NFS to share with Linux and some Windows boxes, work reasonably well. Pick *ONE* file server, don't try to do this with all 3 machines or you'll enter a configuration rats nest. Mount your file shares from the server box. Use the now stable IP addresses: you can use host names if you set up a DNS server for yourself or a put host names in each machines /etc/hosts file, but for only 3 boxes, you don't need it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktim3h99dhas05fqu4g1shceco8f...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On Sb, 04 iun 11, 02:31:28, Doug wrote: > > > I opened the suggested url, and read the following intro: "*Reader > Prerequisites*: To get the most from this > article, understand the following concepts before reading: basic > unix command line tools, text editors, > DNS, TCP/IP, DHCP, netmask, gateway" > > I'm not afraid of command line tools and I can use nano or pico, or > mc (yes, I've been around > since WordStar days)--vi is a problem--but some of the network terms > are not really clear > to me. The only one I'm sure of is netmask, but I'm not sure if > that is fixed to a machine or > that is the "dynamic" part of DHCP. Nor do I know where the "name" > in DNS comes from. > As you see, I wasn't kidding about knowing about networking. Hello Doug, I would suggest (in this order): 1. read on Wikipedia about all the terms above you don't understand - ask questions here for anything you don't understand (be specific and open a new thread for each question) 2. open a new thread with a good subject and describe exactly - what computers you have (with OS and computer names if possible) - what other hardware you have (printers and such) - what network devices you have (including exact model) - how are they all connected to each other - what you want to achieve Yes, it's not easy, but my impression is you don't want to be spoon-fed, but instead really understand what you would be doing :) Regards, Andrei P.S. Before you start, this is an excelent read http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/04/2011 01:31 AM, Doug wrote: [snip] I opened the suggested url, and read the following intro: "*Reader Prerequisites*: To get the most from this article, understand the following concepts before reading: basic unix command line tools, text editors, DNS, TCP/IP, DHCP, netmask, gateway" I'm not afraid of command line tools and I can use nano or pico, or mc (yes, I've been around What do you current use to configure networking in Linux? (You must get to the Internet somehow...) -- "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel Adams, essay in The Public Advertiser, 1749 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4de9d653.90...@cox.net
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/04/2011 01:10 AM, Doug wrote: On 06/04/2011 01:55 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/04/2011 12:48 AM, Doug wrote: [snip] No, I don't have a network up. As I said, I really don't know anything about networks. What I want is not only file sharing, but the ability to use the Win 7 machine as a print server. (Linux is not fit to be a print server since it takes forever to print .pdf's. Maybe someday. . . .) Also, the Win 7 machine is closer to the printers, which are hard-wired. All of the machines are connected by ethernet But you say at the beginning of the paragraph that you don't have a network "up". Misprint? or wireless. but the printers don't have either. No, I can plug both the Windows and one Linux machine into the Laserjet, one on parallel, and one on usb. But the only way I can communicate between any of the machines to share files is to email myself thru the isp. And the only way I can print to the color printer is to move the usb cable to whichever of two of the machines--the Win 7 or the other Linux--it will reach. And it is far too late to move everything around, and anyway the printers only have two input ports, and there are three computers. I hope I have made sense? How do they access the Intarweb at the same time? Or do they? -- "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel Adams, essay in The Public Advertiser, 1749 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4de9d5ab.8020...@cox.net
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/04/2011 02:00 AM, William Hopkins wrote: On 06/04/11 at 01:48am, Doug wrote: On 06/04/2011 01:30 AM, William Hopkins wrote: On 06/04/11 at 12:58am, Doug wrote: On 06/03/2011 11:28 PM, William Hopkins wrote: On 06/03/11 at 10:02pm, Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/03/2011 11:43 AM, John A. Sullivan III wrote: [snip] NFS is by far simpler to use in pure Linux environment, Samba is for Windows networks. NFS has no passwords, just install it with apt-get, and declare /etc/exports in the server, and mount the shares in the clients /etc/fstab. That's all it takes. Fine for home environments, but shouldn't an office environment use LDAP for coordinated UID/GID sharing? /snip/ Not to steal the thread, but those who read this probably are the best to advise me. I know nothing about networking, but I would like to set up a peer-to-peer network ... Peer to peer typically refers to filesharing programs. Can you explain what it is you want? I assume you've already got a network up, is it file sharing you mean? If that's so, you probably don't even need samba. Just smbfs/smbclient on the linux clients to read the stuff on the Windows 7 box. No, I don't have a network up. As I said, I really don't know anything about networks. here's the debian networking howto, for your linux machines: http://wiki.debian.org/NetworkConfiguration the important files are /etc/network/interfaces and /etc/resolv.conf you can report back with questions or google a howto or hit up IRC for realtime support... I opened the suggested url, and read the following intro: "*Reader Prerequisites*: To get the most from this article, understand the following concepts before reading: basic unix command line tools, text editors, DNS, TCP/IP, DHCP, netmask, gateway" I'm not afraid of command line tools and I can use nano or pico, or mc (yes, I've been around since WordStar days)--vi is a problem--but some of the network terms are not really clear to me. The only one I'm sure of is netmask, but I'm not sure if that is fixed to a machine or that is the "dynamic" part of DHCP. Nor do I know where the "name" in DNS comes from. As you see, I wasn't kidding about knowing about networking. However, I will google all these terms and see if that will clear things up. Then try the url again. (Meantime, I have to go to bed--it's 2:30 AM!) Thanx--doug What I want is not only file sharing, but the ability to use the Win 7 machine as a print server. IIRC it's easier to use linux as the server component for printing, but not impossible to go the other way. Unfortunately I don't have any windows machines, so I fear I'll be little help. Perhaps someone else can point you in the right direction. -- Blessed are the peacekeepers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/04/2011 01:55 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/04/2011 12:48 AM, Doug wrote: [snip] No, I don't have a network up. As I said, I really don't know anything about networks. What I want is not only file sharing, but the ability to use the Win 7 machine as a print server. (Linux is not fit to be a print server since it takes forever to print .pdf's. Maybe someday. . . .) Also, the Win 7 machine is closer to the printers, which are hard-wired. All of the machines are connected by ethernet But you say at the beginning of the paragraph that you don't have a network "up". Misprint? or wireless. but the printers don't have either. No, I can plug both the Windows and one Linux machine into the Laserjet, one on parallel, and one on usb. But the only way I can communicate between any of the machines to share files is to email myself thru the isp. And the only way I can print to the color printer is to move the usb cable to whichever of two of the machines--the Win 7 or the other Linux--it will reach. And it is far too late to move everything around, and anyway the printers only have two input ports, and there are three computers. I hope I have made sense? --doug -- Blessed are the peacekeepers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4de9cc68.2030...@optonline.net
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/04/11 at 01:48am, Doug wrote: > On 06/04/2011 01:30 AM, William Hopkins wrote: > >On 06/04/11 at 12:58am, Doug wrote: > >>On 06/03/2011 11:28 PM, William Hopkins wrote: > >>>On 06/03/11 at 10:02pm, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 06/03/2011 11:43 AM, John A. Sullivan III wrote: > [snip] > >NFS is by far simpler to use in pure Linux environment, Samba is for > >Windows networks. NFS has no passwords, just install it with apt-get, > >and declare /etc/exports in the server, and mount the shares in the > >clients /etc/fstab. That's all it takes. > > > Fine for home environments, but shouldn't an office environment use > LDAP for coordinated UID/GID sharing? > >>/snip/ > >> > >>Not to steal the thread, but those who read this probably are the best to > >>advise me. I know nothing about networking, but I would like to set up > >>a peer-to-peer network ... > >Peer to peer typically refers to filesharing programs. Can you explain what > >it is you want? > >I assume you've already got a network up, is it file sharing you mean? > > > >If that's so, you probably don't even need samba. Just smbfs/smbclient on > >the linux clients to read the stuff on the Windows 7 box. > > > No, I don't have a network up. As I said, I really don't know > anything about networks. here's the debian networking howto, for your linux machines: http://wiki.debian.org/NetworkConfiguration the important files are /etc/network/interfaces and /etc/resolv.conf you can report back with questions or google a howto or hit up IRC for realtime support... > What I want is not only file sharing, but the ability to use the Win 7 > machine as a print server. IIRC it's easier to use linux as the server component for printing, but not impossible to go the other way. Unfortunately I don't have any windows machines, so I fear I'll be little help. Perhaps someone else can point you in the right direction. -- Liam signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/04/2011 12:48 AM, Doug wrote: [snip] No, I don't have a network up. As I said, I really don't know anything about networks. What I want is not only file sharing, but the ability to use the Win 7 machine as a print server. (Linux is not fit to be a print server since it takes forever to print .pdf's. Maybe someday. . . .) Also, the Win 7 machine is closer to the printers, which are hard-wired. All of the machines are connected by ethernet But you say at the beginning of the paragraph that you don't have a network "up". Misprint? or wireless. but the printers don't have either. -- "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel Adams, essay in The Public Advertiser, 1749 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4de9c8cd.8080...@cox.net
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/04/2011 01:30 AM, William Hopkins wrote: On 06/04/11 at 12:58am, Doug wrote: On 06/03/2011 11:28 PM, William Hopkins wrote: On 06/03/11 at 10:02pm, Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/03/2011 11:43 AM, John A. Sullivan III wrote: [snip] NFS is by far simpler to use in pure Linux environment, Samba is for Windows networks. NFS has no passwords, just install it with apt-get, and declare /etc/exports in the server, and mount the shares in the clients /etc/fstab. That's all it takes. Fine for home environments, but shouldn't an office environment use LDAP for coordinated UID/GID sharing? /snip/ Not to steal the thread, but those who read this probably are the best to advise me. I know nothing about networking, but I would like to set up a peer-to-peer network ... Peer to peer typically refers to filesharing programs. Can you explain what it is you want? I assume you've already got a network up, is it file sharing you mean? If that's so, you probably don't even need samba. Just smbfs/smbclient on the linux clients to read the stuff on the Windows 7 box. No, I don't have a network up. As I said, I really don't know anything about networks. What I want is not only file sharing, but the ability to use the Win 7 machine as a print server. (Linux is not fit to be a print server since it takes forever to print .pdf's. Maybe someday. . . .) Also, the Win 7 machine is closer to the printers, which are hard-wired. All of the machines are connected by ethernet or wireless. but the printers don't have either. --doug Blessed are the peacekeepers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/04/11 at 12:58am, Doug wrote: > On 06/03/2011 11:28 PM, William Hopkins wrote: > >On 06/03/11 at 10:02pm, Ron Johnson wrote: > >>On 06/03/2011 11:43 AM, John A. Sullivan III wrote: > >>[snip] > >>>NFS is by far simpler to use in pure Linux environment, Samba is for > >>>Windows networks. NFS has no passwords, just install it with apt-get, > >>>and declare /etc/exports in the server, and mount the shares in the > >>>clients /etc/fstab. That's all it takes. > >>> > >>Fine for home environments, but shouldn't an office environment use > >>LDAP for coordinated UID/GID sharing? > > > /snip/ > > Not to steal the thread, but those who read this probably are the best to > advise me. I know nothing about networking, but I would like to set up > a peer-to-peer network ... Peer to peer typically refers to filesharing programs. Can you explain what it is you want? I assume you've already got a network up, is it file sharing you mean? If that's so, you probably don't even need samba. Just smbfs/smbclient on the linux clients to read the stuff on the Windows 7 box. -- Liam signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Samba or NFS--tangent
On 06/03/2011 11:28 PM, William Hopkins wrote: On 06/03/11 at 10:02pm, Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/03/2011 11:43 AM, John A. Sullivan III wrote: [snip] NFS is by far simpler to use in pure Linux environment, Samba is for Windows networks. NFS has no passwords, just install it with apt-get, and declare /etc/exports in the server, and mount the shares in the clients /etc/fstab. That's all it takes. Fine for home environments, but shouldn't an office environment use LDAP for coordinated UID/GID sharing? /snip/ Not to steal the thread, but those who read this probably are the best to advise me. I know nothing about networking, but I would like to set up a peer-to-peer network among a Windows 7 and two Linux machines, one of which can also be booted to XP. (If one absolutely *must* be a "master" it must be the Windows 7 machine.) I assume I would use samba. I don't need any security--all the machines are mine, here in the house with me, and I live alone. What I need is words of one syllable on how to do it. Is there a "Networks For Dummies" for me somewhere? Thanx--doug -- Blessed are the peacekeepers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4de9bb80.7050...@optonline.net
Re: Samba or NFS
On 06/03/11 at 10:02pm, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 06/03/2011 11:43 AM, John A. Sullivan III wrote: > [snip] > > > >NFS is by far simpler to use in pure Linux environment, Samba is for > >Windows networks. NFS has no passwords, just install it with apt-get, > >and declare /etc/exports in the server, and mount the shares in the > >clients /etc/fstab. That's all it takes. > > > > Fine for home environments, but shouldn't an office environment use > LDAP for coordinated UID/GID sharing? The UID namespace is an orthogonal issue.. you can use LDAP or you can use simple file-transfer mechanisms to keep your passwd and group files synchronized. It's not a security issue unless you have users with different UIDs on different systems and you don't realize this when setting permissions. Although yes, most offices (big more than small) use LDAP or similar. -- Liam signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Samba or NFS
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Dan wrote: > Hi, > > I have two linux servers. One file server (debian) that is running > samba and one application server (redhat). I would like to mount the > shares of the file server in the application server. The problem is > that the usernames are very different. Samba is already running and > easier to set-up. NFS seems to be more difficult to set-up and also > there are more security issues. > > Which are the advantages of NFS over Samba (cifs) other than the > symbolic links. I read that even some people prefer samba over NFS to > connect Unix to Unix. > > Thanks, > Dan CIFS clients mishandle mixed case filenames, such as 'file.txt", "FILE.txt", and "FILE.TXT". They also have a massively different idea of how file ownership and privileges work than the POSIX standards built into most UNIX and Linux native filesystems. And while I very much applaud the work of the Samba team for providing this cross-compatibility tool, it performs like a *dog* compared to NFS, AFS, ZFS, or the other more powerful network based fileysstems. NFS needs some attention to security: so does CIFS. But most of the complexities CIFS does more trivilally, such as mixed group ownership, can be resolved with tools built into NFS such as "netgroups" suport. And holy moley, but the speed of simple network operations like Subversion checkouts is *grotesquely* faster under NFS. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=5pby1shwoknz7rqtqumwfvbt...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Samba or NFS
On 06/03/2011 11:43 AM, John A. Sullivan III wrote: [snip] NFS is by far simpler to use in pure Linux environment, Samba is for Windows networks. NFS has no passwords, just install it with apt-get, and declare /etc/exports in the server, and mount the shares in the clients /etc/fstab. That's all it takes. Fine for home environments, but shouldn't an office environment use LDAP for coordinated UID/GID sharing? -- "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel Adams, essay in The Public Advertiser, 1749 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4de9a037.1030...@cox.net
Samba or NFS
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Dan wrote: > Thanks a lot for your answers, I will use NFS. Both computers and the > users are trusted. To improve the security I could set rules in the > iptables to allow NFS access only to my computers. > The problem is not that the users are trusted... the problem is if everybody in that lan is trusted. Anybody in your lan can spoof the trusted ip and get access to share AFAIK... As said previously nfsv4 should be used with kerberos if you want to do it properly > Dan > greets! aL
Re: Samba or NFS
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:49 PM, William Hopkins wrote: > On 06/03/11 at 07:41pm, Axel Freyn wrote: >> Hi, >> On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:17:35PM -0400, William Hopkins wrote: >> > On 06/03/11 at 12:43pm, John A. Sullivan III wrote: >> > > - Original Message - >> > > From: "Jari Fredriksson" >> > > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org >> > > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 11:58:15 AM >> > > Subject: Re: Samba or NFS >> > > >> > > 3.6.2011 18:08, Dan kirjoitti: >> > > > Hi, >> > > > >> > > > I have two linux servers. One file server (debian) that is running >> > > > samba and one application server (redhat). I would like to mount the >> > > > shares of the file server in the application server. The problem is >> > > > that the usernames are very different. Samba is already running and >> > > > easier to set-up. NFS seems to be more difficult to set-up and also >> > > > there are more security issues. >> > > > >> > > > Which are the advantages of NFS over Samba (cifs) other than the >> > > > symbolic links. I read that even some people prefer samba over NFS to >> > > > connect Unix to Unix. >> > > > >> > > >> > > NFS is by far simpler to use in pure Linux environment, Samba is for >> > > Windows networks. NFS has no passwords, just install it with apt-get, >> > > and declare /etc/exports in the server, and mount the shares in the >> > > clients /etc/fstab. That's all it takes. >> > > >> > > NFS offers native looking folders to *nix machines over networks. >> > > >> > > I don't know a lot about either but is "no passwords" still true >> > > with NFS4? Even if it is, is that one of the security issues the >> > > original poster is concerned about? >> > > >> > > Under heavy concurrent usage, are there locking issues with either? >> > > Which performs better under heavy load with lots of random file IO? >> > > I am particularly interested because our environment has been build >> > > around iSCSI. There is a possible shift in a core technology for us >> > > which may shift us from a SAN using iSCSI to a NAS using either NFS >> > > or SMB so we, too, are quite interested in others' experiences. >> > > Thanks - John >> > >> > SANs will almost always perform better than NAS', FWIW. >> > >> > NFS has the better load handling and has good locking (provided you >> > run it as recommended with portmap, statd, etc.) >> > Samba is primarily used to share files to windows hosts. >> > >> > The security architecture of NFSv3 and earlier is based on simple UID >> > reliance. You can stop root access altogether, and there's little >> > concern of NFS leading to a system being corrupted, but it IS >> > technically possible for a malicious user to delete other users files >> > if you have write allowed. NFS is usually used in environments with >> > trusted users (i.e. share only to specific machines, not the world). >> >> just to mention it: >> >> NFSv3 has real security concerns (you have to trust in all machines >> connected to the network. A LOCAL root account on a client is sufficient >> to gain access to all files in the NFS-directory (by faking the UID). >> >> For NFSv4 this has changed. You can use NFSv4 in different modes. The >> easy one has the same problem. >> However, you can switch on strong authentification (based on Kerberos), >> then it's safe (the server verifies that the client has the correct >> Kerberos-token of this user -- UID is not sufficient), and even ask to >> sign all transfers (to block man-in-the-middle-attacks which could >> change the commands sent to the server) and encryption (to protect data >> privacy). >> >> However, it's much more work to install, as you also need a full >> Kerberos-setup > > As I said, NFSv3 is for trusted environments. Many thousands use it with > success and security, you simply consider the security problem carefully > before implementation. Anyone you grant access to a share may, if malicious, > read or write everything (if write is enabled) in that share. Limiting the > scope of shares is usually sufficient even for corporate security > requirements such as SOX and HIPAA. > > -- > Liam > Thanks a lot for your answers, I will use NFS. Both computers and the users are trusted. To improve the security I could set rules in the iptables to allow NFS access only to my computers. Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktimkr7yjdk16ueuovczh4u6ezsh...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Samba or NFS
On 06/03/11 at 07:41pm, Axel Freyn wrote: > Hi, > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:17:35PM -0400, William Hopkins wrote: > > On 06/03/11 at 12:43pm, John A. Sullivan III wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Jari Fredriksson" > > > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > > > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 11:58:15 AM > > > Subject: Re: Samba or NFS > > > > > > 3.6.2011 18:08, Dan kirjoitti: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I have two linux servers. One file server (debian) that is running > > > > samba and one application server (redhat). I would like to mount the > > > > shares of the file server in the application server. The problem is > > > > that the usernames are very different. Samba is already running and > > > > easier to set-up. NFS seems to be more difficult to set-up and also > > > > there are more security issues. > > > > > > > > Which are the advantages of NFS over Samba (cifs) other than the > > > > symbolic links. I read that even some people prefer samba over NFS to > > > > connect Unix to Unix. > > > > > > > > > > NFS is by far simpler to use in pure Linux environment, Samba is for > > > Windows networks. NFS has no passwords, just install it with apt-get, > > > and declare /etc/exports in the server, and mount the shares in the > > > clients /etc/fstab. That's all it takes. > > > > > > NFS offers native looking folders to *nix machines over networks. > > > > > > I don't know a lot about either but is "no passwords" still true > > > with NFS4? Even if it is, is that one of the security issues the > > > original poster is concerned about? > > > > > > Under heavy concurrent usage, are there locking issues with either? > > > Which performs better under heavy load with lots of random file IO? > > > I am particularly interested because our environment has been build > > > around iSCSI. There is a possible shift in a core technology for us > > > which may shift us from a SAN using iSCSI to a NAS using either NFS > > > or SMB so we, too, are quite interested in others' experiences. > > > Thanks - John > > > > SANs will almost always perform better than NAS', FWIW. > > > > NFS has the better load handling and has good locking (provided you > > run it as recommended with portmap, statd, etc.) > > Samba is primarily used to share files to windows hosts. > > > > The security architecture of NFSv3 and earlier is based on simple UID > > reliance. You can stop root access altogether, and there's little > > concern of NFS leading to a system being corrupted, but it IS > > technically possible for a malicious user to delete other users files > > if you have write allowed. NFS is usually used in environments with > > trusted users (i.e. share only to specific machines, not the world). > > just to mention it: > > NFSv3 has real security concerns (you have to trust in all machines > connected to the network. A LOCAL root account on a client is sufficient > to gain access to all files in the NFS-directory (by faking the UID). > > For NFSv4 this has changed. You can use NFSv4 in different modes. The > easy one has the same problem. > However, you can switch on strong authentification (based on Kerberos), > then it's safe (the server verifies that the client has the correct > Kerberos-token of this user -- UID is not sufficient), and even ask to > sign all transfers (to block man-in-the-middle-attacks which could > change the commands sent to the server) and encryption (to protect data > privacy). > > However, it's much more work to install, as you also need a full > Kerberos-setup As I said, NFSv3 is for trusted environments. Many thousands use it with success and security, you simply consider the security problem carefully before implementation. Anyone you grant access to a share may, if malicious, read or write everything (if write is enabled) in that share. Limiting the scope of shares is usually sufficient even for corporate security requirements such as SOX and HIPAA. -- Liam signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Samba or NFS
Hi, On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:17:35PM -0400, William Hopkins wrote: > On 06/03/11 at 12:43pm, John A. Sullivan III wrote: > > - Original Message - > > From: "Jari Fredriksson" > > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 11:58:15 AM > > Subject: Re: Samba or NFS > > > > 3.6.2011 18:08, Dan kirjoitti: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I have two linux servers. One file server (debian) that is running > > > samba and one application server (redhat). I would like to mount the > > > shares of the file server in the application server. The problem is > > > that the usernames are very different. Samba is already running and > > > easier to set-up. NFS seems to be more difficult to set-up and also > > > there are more security issues. > > > > > > Which are the advantages of NFS over Samba (cifs) other than the > > > symbolic links. I read that even some people prefer samba over NFS to > > > connect Unix to Unix. > > > > > > > NFS is by far simpler to use in pure Linux environment, Samba is for > > Windows networks. NFS has no passwords, just install it with apt-get, > > and declare /etc/exports in the server, and mount the shares in the > > clients /etc/fstab. That's all it takes. > > > > NFS offers native looking folders to *nix machines over networks. > > > > I don't know a lot about either but is "no passwords" still true > > with NFS4? Even if it is, is that one of the security issues the > > original poster is concerned about? > > > > Under heavy concurrent usage, are there locking issues with either? > > Which performs better under heavy load with lots of random file IO? > > I am particularly interested because our environment has been build > > around iSCSI. There is a possible shift in a core technology for us > > which may shift us from a SAN using iSCSI to a NAS using either NFS > > or SMB so we, too, are quite interested in others' experiences. > > Thanks - John > > SANs will almost always perform better than NAS', FWIW. > > NFS has the better load handling and has good locking (provided you > run it as recommended with portmap, statd, etc.) > Samba is primarily used to share files to windows hosts. > > The security architecture of NFSv3 and earlier is based on simple UID > reliance. You can stop root access altogether, and there's little > concern of NFS leading to a system being corrupted, but it IS > technically possible for a malicious user to delete other users files > if you have write allowed. NFS is usually used in environments with > trusted users (i.e. share only to specific machines, not the world). just to mention it: NFSv3 has real security concerns (you have to trust in all machines connected to the network. A LOCAL root account on a client is sufficient to gain access to all files in the NFS-directory (by faking the UID). For NFSv4 this has changed. You can use NFSv4 in different modes. The easy one has the same problem. However, you can switch on strong authentification (based on Kerberos), then it's safe (the server verifies that the client has the correct Kerberos-token of this user -- UID is not sufficient), and even ask to sign all transfers (to block man-in-the-middle-attacks which could change the commands sent to the server) and encryption (to protect data privacy). However, it's much more work to install, as you also need a full Kerberos-setup Axel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110603174153.GR19127@axel
Re: Samba or NFS
On 06/03/11 at 12:43pm, John A. Sullivan III wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Jari Fredriksson" > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 11:58:15 AM > Subject: Re: Samba or NFS > > 3.6.2011 18:08, Dan kirjoitti: > > Hi, > > > > I have two linux servers. One file server (debian) that is running > > samba and one application server (redhat). I would like to mount the > > shares of the file server in the application server. The problem is > > that the usernames are very different. Samba is already running and > > easier to set-up. NFS seems to be more difficult to set-up and also > > there are more security issues. > > > > Which are the advantages of NFS over Samba (cifs) other than the > > symbolic links. I read that even some people prefer samba over NFS to > > connect Unix to Unix. > > > > NFS is by far simpler to use in pure Linux environment, Samba is for > Windows networks. NFS has no passwords, just install it with apt-get, > and declare /etc/exports in the server, and mount the shares in the > clients /etc/fstab. That's all it takes. > > NFS offers native looking folders to *nix machines over networks. > > I don't know a lot about either but is "no passwords" still true with NFS4? > Even if it is, is that one of the security issues the original poster is > concerned about? > > Under heavy concurrent usage, are there locking issues with either? Which > performs better under heavy load with lots of random file IO? I am > particularly interested because our environment has been build around iSCSI. > There is a possible shift in a core technology for us which may shift us from > a SAN using iSCSI to a NAS using either NFS or SMB so we, too, are quite > interested in others' experiences. Thanks - John SANs will almost always perform better than NAS', FWIW. NFS has the better load handling and has good locking (provided you run it as recommended with portmap, statd, etc.) Samba is primarily used to share files to windows hosts. The security architecture of NFSv3 and earlier is based on simple UID reliance. You can stop root access altogether, and there's little concern of NFS leading to a system being corrupted, but it IS technically possible for a malicious user to delete other users files if you have write allowed. NFS is usually used in environments with trusted users (i.e. share only to specific machines, not the world). -- Liam signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Samba or NFS
- Original Message - From: "Jari Fredriksson" To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 11:58:15 AM Subject: Re: Samba or NFS 3.6.2011 18:08, Dan kirjoitti: > Hi, > > I have two linux servers. One file server (debian) that is running > samba and one application server (redhat). I would like to mount the > shares of the file server in the application server. The problem is > that the usernames are very different. Samba is already running and > easier to set-up. NFS seems to be more difficult to set-up and also > there are more security issues. > > Which are the advantages of NFS over Samba (cifs) other than the > symbolic links. I read that even some people prefer samba over NFS to > connect Unix to Unix. > NFS is by far simpler to use in pure Linux environment, Samba is for Windows networks. NFS has no passwords, just install it with apt-get, and declare /etc/exports in the server, and mount the shares in the clients /etc/fstab. That's all it takes. NFS offers native looking folders to *nix machines over networks. I don't know a lot about either but is "no passwords" still true with NFS4? Even if it is, is that one of the security issues the original poster is concerned about? Under heavy concurrent usage, are there locking issues with either? Which performs better under heavy load with lots of random file IO? I am particularly interested because our environment has been build around iSCSI. There is a possible shift in a core technology for us which may shift us from a SAN using iSCSI to a NAS using either NFS or SMB so we, too, are quite interested in others' experiences. Thanks - John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/46b5dae0-f0a4-45bd-b0b2-d20c6f59eefb@jaseee
Re: Samba or NFS
3.6.2011 18:08, Dan kirjoitti: > Hi, > > I have two linux servers. One file server (debian) that is running > samba and one application server (redhat). I would like to mount the > shares of the file server in the application server. The problem is > that the usernames are very different. Samba is already running and > easier to set-up. NFS seems to be more difficult to set-up and also > there are more security issues. > > Which are the advantages of NFS over Samba (cifs) other than the > symbolic links. I read that even some people prefer samba over NFS to > connect Unix to Unix. > NFS is by far simpler to use in pure Linux environment, Samba is for Windows networks. NFS has no passwords, just install it with apt-get, and declare /etc/exports in the server, and mount the shares in the clients /etc/fstab. That's all it takes. NFS offers native looking folders to *nix machines over networks. -- Sheriff Chameleotoptor sighed with an air of weary sadness, and then turned to Doppelgutt and said 'The Senator must really have been on a bender this time -- he left a party in Cleveland, Ohio, at 11:30 last night, and they found his car this morning in the smokestack of a British aircraft carrier in the Formosa Straits.' -- Grand Panjandrum's Special Award, 1985 Bulwer-Lytton bad fiction contest. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Samba or NFS
Hi, I have two linux servers. One file server (debian) that is running samba and one application server (redhat). I would like to mount the shares of the file server in the application server. The problem is that the usernames are very different. Samba is already running and easier to set-up. NFS seems to be more difficult to set-up and also there are more security issues. Which are the advantages of NFS over Samba (cifs) other than the symbolic links. I read that even some people prefer samba over NFS to connect Unix to Unix. Thanks, Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=xnw8vhvfjugegljkmjrvyrgw...@mail.gmail.com
Re: samba or NFS mount
At 12:11 PM 11/27/00 +0100, you wrote: DG> I was wondering what would be better to use in this situation. DG> I want to basically be able to have read access to a particular LAN device DG> on which the files are on a NT server and the client(s) that I want to be DG> able to read files (mostly spreadsheets *.xls) that change daily. So I DG> guess the question I have is would samba be better to use or some other DG> nfs protocal? If you have some moneys, buy HUMMINGBIRD NFS MAESTRO server for NT: NFS Maestro Server enables UNIX workstations and network-attached NFS computers to access Windows-based resources such as Windows NT file systems, directories, printers and CD-ROMs across a network. http://www.hummingbird.com/products/nc/nfs/index.html I'm forever reading that as "humpingbird" must be my filthy warped mind. -- Criggie
Re: samba or NFS mount
Hello Debian, Saturday, November 25, 2000, 8:52:22 PM, you wrote: DG> Hey Guys, DG> I was wondering what would be better to use in this situation. DG> I want to basically be able to have read access to a particular LAN device DG> on which the files are on a NT server and the client(s) that I want to be DG> able to read files (mostly spreadsheets *.xls) that change daily. So I DG> guess the question I have is would samba be better to use or some other DG> nfs protocal? DG> Thank you kindly, DG> Sir D. Ghost If you have some moneys, buy HUMMINGBIRD NFS MAESTRO server for NT: NFS Maestro Server enables UNIX workstations and network-attached NFS computers to access Windows-based resources such as Windows NT file systems, directories, printers and CD-ROMs across a network. http://www.hummingbird.com/products/nc/nfs/index.html
Re: samba or NFS mount
On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 05:01:29PM -0500, Debian Ghost wrote: > Thank you for the reply. > So samba is the only way to "mount" an NT filesystem? Sounds good... > Do I need to run a samba server on the linux machine or would the server > be an application on the NT machine. I went to samba.org/samba to read the > FAQs and I'm still a little confused as to what I do to get started. A samba server allows you to export directories from a non-Windows box such that they look like shared Windows directories. - Since NT already has the capability to share directories in the way that Windows does it, there's no need to run a samba server on it. - Since the Linux box will only be mounting samba shares, not exporting them, it doesn't need to run a samba server either. It just needs a samba client, such as a kernel built with SMB filesystem support. -- "Two words: Windows survives." - Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior strategist "So does syphillis. Good thing we have penicillin." - Matthew Alton Geek Code 3.1: GCS d? s+: a- C++ UL++$ P++>+++ L+++> E- W--(++) N+ o+ !K w---$ O M- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t 5++ X+ R++ tv b+ DI D G e* h+ r++ y+
Re: samba or NFS mount
You do not need to run a samba server to mount filesystems on your Linux box from NT via samba At 17:01 2000-11-25 -0500, Debian Ghost wrote: Thank you for the reply. So samba is the only way to "mount" an NT filesystem? Sounds good... Do I need to run a samba server on the linux machine or would the server be an application on the NT machine. I went to samba.org/samba to read the FAQs and I'm still a little confused as to what I do to get started. Stefan Cars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Globalwire Communications Tel: +46 (0)708 44 36 00 Stockholm: London: Tel: +46 (0)8 598 19 000Tel : +44 (0)20 7829 8467 Fax: +46 (0)708 44 36 04Fax : +44 (0)20 7497 1300 http://www.globalwire.co.uk/
Re: samba or NFS mount
There is some NFS products for NT At 16:37 2000-11-25 -0500, Jonathan D. Proulx wrote: Hi, AFAIK if the files are on an NT server your only option is samba, although if you really wanted to get weird you could use appletalk wich both NT and GNU/Linux (via netatalk) can speak -Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stefan Cars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Globalwire Communications Tel: +46 (0)708 44 36 00 Stockholm: London: Tel: +46 (0)8 598 19 000Tel : +44 (0)20 7829 8467 Fax: +46 (0)708 44 36 04Fax : +44 (0)20 7497 1300 http://www.globalwire.co.uk/
Re: samba or NFS mount
Thank you for the reply. So samba is the only way to "mount" an NT filesystem? Sounds good... Do I need to run a samba server on the linux machine or would the server be an application on the NT machine. I went to samba.org/samba to read the FAQs and I'm still a little confused as to what I do to get started. Thanks! D. Ghost On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Jonathan D. Proulx wrote: > Hi, > > AFAIK if the files are on an NT server your only option is samba, > although if you really wanted to get weird you could use appletalk > wich both NT and GNU/Linux (via netatalk) can speak > > -Jon >
Re: samba or NFS mount
Hi, AFAIK if the files are on an NT server your only option is samba, although if you really wanted to get weird you could use appletalk wich both NT and GNU/Linux (via netatalk) can speak -Jon
samba or NFS mount
Hey Guys, I was wondering what would be better to use in this situation. I want to basically be able to have read access to a particular LAN device on which the files are on a NT server and the client(s) that I want to be able to read files (mostly spreadsheets *.xls) that change daily. So I guess the question I have is would samba be better to use or some other nfs protocal? Thank you kindly, Sir D. Ghost
