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.