NFS or SSHFS?
Israel Garcia
Do you know pros and cons of using SSHFS instead NFS to share a lot of
debian folders? I know NFS is proven and has good performance with a
lot of shares and intensive use. BUT I don't know if SSHFS have been
proven to work under this circumstances. Any experience using SSHFS?
--
Regards;
Israel Garcia
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Samy Ascha, Xel Media B.V.
Hi Israel Garcia,
I think alot depends on how you're gonna use the shares. SSHFS was not
designed to deal with concurrent access, so if you're gonna have
multiple
users writing to the same shares, you might end up with a corrupted
filesystem.
NFS *does* have locking built-in, etc. As far as performance goes; I
never compared them. I can only guess, that SSHFS would have some
encryption
overhead.
I only use SSHFS to access files over insecure networks, as the only
user.
Kind regards,
Samy Ascha
Michael Pobega
> Hi list,
>
> Do you know pros and cons of using SSHFS instead NFS to share a lot of
> debian folders? I know NFS is proven and has good performance with a
> lot of shares and intensive use. BUT I don't know if SSHFS have been
> proven to work under this circumstances. Any experience using SSHFS?
>
SSHFS is generally meant to be used as a single-user filesystem; if multiple
people are going to be accessing the mount, you may want to go with NFS.
Also keep in mind the overhead from the encryption will make any SSH transfers
noticeably slower than it's NFS counterpart.
What I 'use' SSHFS for is to mount my $HOME at work to local $HOME/work so that
I can edit my scripts using my local tools, as opposed to having to do
everything over SSH. SSHFS isn't meant to be an encrypted answer to NFS, it's
meant to do little things like that.
At least that's my opinion; I guess you could technically use it any way you
want.
--
http://fuzzydev.org/~pobega
http://identi.ca/pobega
Jerome BENOIT
so far I can remember NSF was not considered as a safe network stuff (see harden-servers) :
may be the last version is safer.
Jerome
Michael Pobega wrote:
> On 0, Israel Garcia <igal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi list,
>>
>> Do you know pros and cons of using SSHFS instead NFS to share a lot of
>> debian folders? I know NFS is proven and has good performance with a
>> lot of shares and intensive use. BUT I don't know if SSHFS have been
>> proven to work under this circumstances. Any experience using SSHFS?
>>
>
> SSHFS is generally meant to be used as a single-user filesystem; if multiple
> people are going to be accessing the mount, you may want to go with NFS.
>
> Also keep in mind the overhead from the encryption will make any SSH transfers
> noticeably slower than it's NFS counterpart.
>
> What I 'use' SSHFS for is to mount my $HOME at work to local $HOME/work so that
> I can edit my scripts using my local tools, as opposed to having to do
> everything over SSH. SSHFS isn't meant to be an encrypted answer to NFS, it's
> meant to do little things like that.
>
> At least that's my opinion; I guess you could technically use it any way you
> want.
>
> --
> http://fuzzydev.org/~pobega
> http://identi.ca/pobega
>
>
--
Jerome BENOIT
jgmbenoit_at_mailsnare_dot_net
Sjoerd Hardeman
> Hello List,
Please follow the bottom-reply policy.
>
> so far I can remember NSF was not considered as a safe network stuff
> (see harden-servers) :
> may be the last version is safer.
authentication and encryption. NFSv4 allows kerberos authentication and
encryption. I don't know how well that works.
For networking over the internet, NFS opens a lot of ports and gives a
lot of additional things to worry about. For that, SSHFS is fine for
simple stuff. Else you can tunnel NFS over SSH, or use a VPN connection.
Use NFS for what its good for (locking, speed, ...) and use other
mechanisms to shield it from the big bad web. This seems to me a
sensible policy for basically all (network) services.
Sjoerd