4 ms·
I have never managed to make sshfs properly handle network problems (at least as well as NFS), especially after suspend & resume, I'd quite too often end with u
by thingie 16y ago
I have never managed to make sshfs properly handle network problems (at least as well as NFS), especially after suspend & resume, I'd quite too often end with unusable machine where half of all desktop apps are hanging on some blocking syscall via that sshfs, that will _never_ timeout. Also, sshfs is quite inefficient. It's main advantage is being almost setupless, both client- and serverside. But you don't need that if you want to permanently mount your servers somewhere. I think that properly setting up NFS is worth it, in your case.
- leif 16y agoA dead NFS server can also stall a local desktop. This was a huge issue at Google, where homedirs are mounted on NFS. Turns out almost all window managers need frequent access to dotfiles or they will freeze. This is stupid.
- thingie 16y agoSure, but it can at least timeout, reutrn EIO, seamlessly reconnect when the connection is reestablished and few other remedies (you can't really do anything else, if this happens), something that I've never managed to make sshfs do properly.
- holdenk 16y agoA lot of window managers don't really deal with NFS timeouts/errors very well. One solution is something like AFS, but that comes with a whole host of issues.