Re: Sharing files on a local network
Raf Czlonka (rjc@linuxstuff.pl on 2011-10-23 15:39 +0100):
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 01:52:14PM BST, Harry Putnam wrote:
> > I don't understand why a few people have passed over ssh as being
> > overkill.
>
> SSH (Secure Shell) - you don't need security on home-only network.
That depends. If you're running a wireless setup, even with WPA2
protection, I'd still advise security.
> > Its easiest of all to setup. (well excepting the nautilus
> > suggestion)
>
> IMHO, it's not - dozens of options for both the server and client.
> You simply mount the NFS share and it's transparent to the system.
Well, in all fairness - NFS requires that the user ids on all systems
match. Forcing such a match can be quite troublesome.
>
> > I mean with fuse and sshfs, then it acts much the same as nfs far as
> > enduser experience.
>
> FUSE as it name suggests is in user-space, NFS is supported in the
> kernel. You don't have the overhead.
Overhead is peanuts :)
No, not really. But for a home setup, convenience trumps performance.
And besides, when's the last time that your desktop machine was pegged
on CPU?
For the current situation, I'd advise sshfs. If it's integrated in
Nautilus, all the better. But SSH is only point-to-point -- as soon as
you're sharing files with more than 2 machines, NFS is the way to go.
My 2 cents: even for Linux-only systems, there really is no
satisfactory answer to the OP's question besides Samba/CIFS. All
(Unix-)native solutions have their roots in enterprise (managed)
networking, which implies manual setup. In terms of autodiscovery and
autoconfiguration, nothing can hold a candle to the original SMB.
Regards,
Arno
Reply to: