4 ms·

NFS basically breaks the client computer until the host responds, while SMB detects the I/O error earlier and, at least, doesn't hang the terminal. Other than

NFS basically breaks the client computer until the host responds, while SMB detects the I/O error earlier and, at least, doesn't hang the terminal. Other than that, SMB allows for permissions and a bunch of other features. It is, basically, a more modern and robust protocol. Does NFS shine for some use cases? Indeed. Would it be the first choice for most ones? Nope. Disclaimer: my sysadmin skills are not so great, I'm talking as a user

EwanToo 14y ago
NFS has 2 mount types, soft and hard. http://tldp.org/HOWTO/NFS-HOWTO/client.html http://tldp.org/HOWTO/NFS-HOWTO/client.html Soft mounts report errors immediately, hard mounts hang. And for permissions, NFS provides everything under the sun that you could possibly need via ACLs. NFSv4 is a very modern protocol, much as SMBv2 is (not SMB though, it's awful). Linux has had NFSv4 for what, 6 years now, at least, and even v2 and v3 had some limited ACL support? http://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/ACLs http://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/ACLs
- carlesfe 14y ago
  That's nice to know, it seems that we have the "hard" configuration at the lab and it's a real pain. Backwards compatibility, you know. For my mini-cluster we use SMB and couldn't be happier.
  - EwanToo 14y ago
    Not sure what your lab's trying to be backwards compatible with (NFS has had those mount options since at least 1989), but whatever works for you :) It's a mount option on the client, not the server, so maybe you can change it yourself. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1094.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1094.txt
  - ominous_prime 14y ago
    In a lot of cases, hard is what you want. Some systems can't deal with fs errors very well, and it's better to wait than to risk data inconsistencies.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
easytiger 14y ago
i cannot possibly disagree more. Are you using NFS from 1999?

EwanToo 14y ago

NFS has 2 mount types, soft and hard. http://tldp.org/HOWTO/NFS-HOWTO/client.html http://tldp.org/HOWTO/NFS-HOWTO/client.html Soft mounts report errors immediately, hard mounts hang. And for permissions, NFS provides everything under the sun that you could possibly need via ACLs. NFSv4 is a very modern protocol, much as SMBv2 is (not SMB though, it's awful). Linux has had NFSv4 for what, 6 years now, at least, and even v2 and v3 had some limited ACL support? http://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/ACLs http://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/ACLs

carlesfe 14y ago
That's nice to know, it seems that we have the "hard" configuration at the lab and it's a real pain. Backwards compatibility, you know. For my mini-cluster we use SMB and couldn't be happier.
- EwanToo 14y ago
  Not sure what your lab's trying to be backwards compatible with (NFS has had those mount options since at least 1989), but whatever works for you :) It's a mount option on the client, not the server, so maybe you can change it yourself. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1094.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1094.txt
- ominous_prime 14y ago
  In a lot of cases, hard is what you want. Some systems can't deal with fs errors very well, and it's better to wait than to risk data inconsistencies.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

easytiger 14y ago

i cannot possibly disagree more. Are you using NFS from 1999?