3 ms·
I kinda doubt it, SSH already have SFTP and SSHFS is .... quite honestly a tool that has no business existing. It's a neat trick but it's always going to be so
by mrweasel 3y ago
I kinda doubt it, SSH already have SFTP and SSHFS is .... quite honestly a tool that has no business existing.
It's a neat trick but it's always going to be something that someone bolted on to a solution because they didn't want to deal with a proper file server. Part of the appeal might be that NFS (3 or 4, take your pick) is still the best we've been able to come up with and neither is really that great for basic installation. Still SSHFS is a mess to deal with in a production setup. Some of the messiest production systems I've de-tangled over years have frequently been relying on SSH and SSHFS to do stuff assumes a permanent connection.
- johnvaluk 3y agoSSHFS provides enormous value precisely because it doesn't rely on configuring a file server or elevated privileges. It's convenient, secure and performs well. The ability to create ad hoc mounts for any remote location I can access via SSH is awesome (though I prefer rsync or scp for file transfers). But relying on SSHFS in production... Yeah, that's insane.
- jmclnx 3y agoI use sshfs at work to mount some AIX Dirs on my Linux Workstation, very convenient.
- fragmede 3y agoNFS has too many shortcomings for me to take your answer seriously. SSHFS is a very useful tool in the right places; if it's a hammer and you have a screw, don't use it.
- barrkel 3y agosftp doesn’t make it easy to copy files from one place to another on an ad hoc basis while developing, using the shell operations you’ve got to hand.