3 ms·
That's too simple for specification. For instance: How much are you ready to pay for the performance in terms of usability, and what are the actual use cases?
by erglkjahlkh 12y ago
That's too simple for specification. For instance: How much are you ready to pay for the performance in terms of usability, and what are the actual use cases?
For instance NFS is pretty poor if your use case is serving shared network directories for workstations (not really great with complex ACLs), or if you require proper authentication for the resources (the Achilles' heel of NFS - where's my kerberos support?!?!!). You might be better off with CIFS.
As the other comments already pointed out, there are several alternatives for several needs. Performance alone should not guide your selection.
- uxcn 12y agov4 (or v4.1) added a few things for increased security. You can probably use LDAP/Kerberos with it. In my experience, R/W throughput with CIFS is fairly bad.
- erglkjahlkh 12y agoIt seems I have some reading to do! I will check this out..
- noselasd 12y agoWe're using Kerberos to authenticate the NFSv4 shares, which seems to work fine. The usernames of the clients need to exist on the server though (but doesn't have to have the same uid as on the client) - you can probably set up a centralized user database with ldap, sssd, ipa or something like that - we havn't done that yet though.
- xorcist 12y agoNFS has many problems but Kerberos support isn't one of them. It was designed from the start to be part of NFSv4, and is the most straightforward way to secure it.