On 5/3/2010 4:56 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Kyle McDonald >> >> If you're only sharing them to Linux machines, then NFS would be so >> much >> easier to use. You'll still want relative links though. >> > Only if you have infrastructure to sanitize the UID's. > > If you have disjoint "standalone" machines, then samba winbind works pretty > well to map usernames to locally generated unique UID's. In which case, > IMHO, samba is easier than NFS. However, if you do have some kind of > domains LDAP, NIS, etc... then I agree 1,000% NFS is easier than samba. > > True, using local passwd files on more than a handful of machines can make adding and removing users and changing passwords a pain.
But (and I could be wrong these days) in my experience, while the Samba server is great, the SMB client on linux can only mount the share as a single specific user, and all accesses to files in the share are performed as that user. Right? That to me makes SMB a less desirable filesystem then NFS where you can't really tell the difference between that and UFS or whatever. -Kyle _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
