[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: samba versus nfs

At 12:58 24/09/2004, you wrote:

If I have a file server that has a samba server installed and is accessed by
both linux and WinXP machines do I really need NFS installed and running?
My understanding is that samba is more secure than NFS and since one can
mount a samba server from a linux machine via mntsamba I am wondering if there
is any reason to use NFS?  Any thoughts?


NFS allows for faster transfers than I can achieve through samba, with less CPU utilisation than smbd. I'm not sure where the "lack of security" comes from though; NFS is quite easy to lock down. It's one downside is that IIRC it doesn't use encrypted passwords and so is vulnerable to packet sniffing, but since I only use it on small trusted LAN's this isn't a concern for me.

Reply to: