4 ms·
Thank you. I'm using sshfs every day to remotely access my computer and servers from my laptop. Although it's slow, it works. I'm considering to switch to NFS i
by yuuta 4y ago
Thank you. I'm using sshfs every day to remotely access my computer and servers from my laptop. Although it's slow, it works. I'm considering to switch to NFS instead.
- FullyFunctional 4y agoAll machines (~ 10 highly diverse) in my home lab mounts my $HOME over NFSv4 from a TrueNAS server. Works very well. I can saturate 10 GbE easily (and have 100 GbE point-to-point to the main compute server). SSHFS is just crazy slow in comparison, has tremendous CPU load, doesn't have reliable coherency semantics (well it can, but then it's even slower). However, creating an ad-hoc sshfs mount is trivial unlike with NFSv4. Also, SSHFS is of course encryped on the wire unlike NFSv4. TL;DR: both have valid use cases, but for a home file server I'd definitely choose NFSv4 for Unix (*BSD, Linux, macOS) hosts (know nothing about Windows).
- justsomehnguy 4y ago> know nothing about Windows TL;DR: If your shares are on the Windows machine just use SMB, *nix SMB clients work fine. NFS Server works on Windows, but depending on the client it works fine or you would preferred it didn't work at all.
- bityard 4y agoNFS doesn't do great on high-latency connections, but it really shines on (and was designed for) a high-speed LAN.