Re: mounting a remote directory
Em Ter, 2005-11-15 às 23:50 +0000, Clive Menzies escreveu:
> On (15/11/05 16:26), Joseph H. Fry wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 November 2005 12:01 pm, Tony Heal wrote:
> > > couple of questions for those more in the know than me. [which probably
> > > means everybody. :) ]
> > >
> > > I am running Debian/sarge
> > >
> > > What are the various ways to mount a remote directory for seamless use by a
> > > service running on a parent server?
> > >
> > > I only know nfs. Is this the best way? Is this the most secure?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Tony Heal
> > > Pace Systems Group, Inc.
> > > 800-624-5999
> > > theal@pace2020.com
> >
> > http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/stirling/computergeek/lufs.html
> >
> > Probably more secure implementation than NFS, especially if the remote
> > filesystem is only excessable via a public network (the internet). However
> > NFS is by far the most documented and thus supported method for this. Oh and
> > there is smbfs to mount MS file systems, but I don't really recommend it
> > unless it's the only way (IE you need to mount a windows share).
>
> We have Linux, Windows and OSX clients and initially used both NFS and
> Samba. However, there were three reasons we decided to standardise all
> clients on Samba:
> NFS is allegedly less secure
I think you got that one wrong: Neither NFS nor SMB is secure.
> To make it more secure an option is to authenticate with IP address but
> it's not very easy to manage unless you use fixed IP addresses which for
> other reasons is not necessarily convenient;
I can't find any reason for not using fixed IPs. (DHCP served fixed IPs)
> we use dhcp
So do we. And each MAC is assigned a fixed IP, visitor's laptop use
non-fixed IPs and of course are not trusted for NFS.
> Simplicity, ie. managing one networking environment as opposed to two.
>
That's a good point.
Michel.
Reply to: