undefined | Better HN

0 pointsVorpalWay1mo ago0 comments

NFS is more annoying on Linux than just using Samba though, at least for the NAS use case. With Samba on my server I can just browse to it in KDE's file manager Dolphin, and samba configuration is a relatively straight forward ini style file on the server. A pair of ports also need to be opened in the host firewall.

Contrast that with NFS, which last I looked needed several config files, matching account IDs between hosts, mounting as root, and would hang processes if connection was lost. At least I hear rpcbind is gone these days.

I don't think anyone sane uses NFS on Linux either these days. And it is rather funny that the protocol Microsoft invented is what stuck and became practical between Linux hosts.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

pastage1mo ago· 2 in thread

NetApp has NFS support and is widely used.

VorpalWayOP1mo ago

First thing I have heard about NetApp. Seems to be some enterprise focused company, with more than one product. Not sure which product of theirs you refer to.

Synology, TrueNAS and Proxmox probably also have NFS support I would assume, and they definitely have Samba. Those are more relevant to me personally.

I just run a normal headless Linux distro on my NAS computer, I don't see the point of a specialised NAS distro. It too could have NFS if I wanted it, but it currently has Samba, because it is easier and works better.

So in conclusion, I'm not sure what your point is? Doesn't NetApp support anything except NFS?

pastage1mo ago

> it is easier and works better

For me NFS is easy and works better, edit two files, enable NFS and update firewall. I had NFS running before SMB, and if I am at hobby level I prefer http if it is good enough. There are technical reasons to use SMB, HTTP, NFS or Ceph. The easy to use options is just a function of how much you know, what you have run into and what you NEED to do.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse