NFS does not have any built in security mechanisms as far as i know. From experience it is faster than SSHFS, though some people report by switching to the blowfish algorithm performance is increased. The biggest problem with SSHFS used in a traditional mount type manner is that is the session times out or a dynamic ipaddress changes the issues will lock the terminal which initiated the connection or cause a graphical filemanager to become unresponsive. NFS4 through something like OpenVPN i find to be much more reliable and faster for permanent filesystem mounts. sftp and sshfs are great for short term solutions or on internal networks where privacy and security is questionable.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Joe Golden <[email protected]> wrote: > My main concerns are performance and security. > > I know there used to be issues with nfs security, but maybe those have > been solved in the more recent versions. > > How much slower is sshfs? > > Thanx. > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 08:15:23PM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > >> What kind of comparisons do you want? Performance? Reliability? >> Integrity? >> >> NFSv4 is pretty modern. It's not your grandpa's NFS. >> >> Ben >> >> On 3 Sep 2014, at 11:10, Joe Golden wrote: >> >> Anthony, >>> >>> I'm playing with sshfs. Anybody got comparisons for sshfs vs nfs? >>> >>> And I second the "something more modern than nfs"? >>> >>> Cheers. >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:38:57AM -0400, Anthony Carrico wrote: >>> >>>> On 09/03/2014 10:36 AM, Anthony Carrico wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just to anticipate some answers: >>>>> * I know I could export the file system via nfs, and run ssh >>>>> cpu-machine racket, but can it be done without exporting the >>>>> filesystem? >>>>> >>>> >>>> And while we are on the topic, is there something more modern than nfs? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Anthony Carrico >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joe Golden /_\ www.Triangul.us /_\ Coding, Drupalism, Open Sourcery >>> >> > -- > Joe Golden /_\ www.Triangul.us /_\ Coding, Drupalism, Open Sourcery >
