Re: samba versus nfs
On Friday 24 September 2004 07:23, Stephen Tait wrote:
> At 12:58 24/09/2004, you wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >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.
For speed I get about the same, using nfs3 over tcp. NFS over udp (default in
linux) is way slower than samba in my experience.
NFS is far more convenient in all unix environments, especially combined with
NIS or ldap and an automounter.
The security issues are due to the fact that nfs environments are usually
running several daemons (statd, mountd, nfsd, lockd, portmapper) as opposed
to one (smbd) and many of those unix rpc related services have an absolutely
atrocious security history. Either way, neither samba nor nfs should be
exposed publically whatsoever, so on a private internal lan either is fine.
There's really no reason to use nfs in an environment with windows pc's and
linux servers.
--
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
( t | i | m | @ | i | t | . | k | p | t | . | c | c )
\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/
GPG key fingerprint = 1DEE CD9B 4808 F608 FBBF DC21 2807 D7D3 09CA 85BF
Reply to: