Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: NFS or SMB

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Beans
    371
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Question NFS or SMB

    Which (NFS or SMB) would be best to use

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    SO ILL
    Beans
    112
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: NFS or SMB

    It depends.

    In a pure *nix environment, I would go with NFS.
    If you have a mixed OS network, go with SMB.
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery - Winston Churchill

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Beans
    371
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Question Re: NFS or SMB

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotty Bones View Post
    It depends.

    In a pure *nix environment, I would go with NFS.
    If you have a mixed OS network, go with SMB.
    I am in process of getting rid of Windows 2K. One client already is running just Jaunty. Next week my main machine will be Jaunty only.

    During this time I still have to run SMB because of my Win Server. I plan of eliminating that soon as well so it will be all Linux.

    So I would like to know why NFS would be better and in what respect would it be better.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Beans
    26

    Re: NFS or SMB

    If all other things were roughly equal (which they probably aren't), NFS isn't proprietary.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SoCal
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: NFS or SMB

    Quote Originally Posted by Frenziefrenz View Post
    If all other things were roughly equal (which they probably aren't), NFS isn't proprietary.
    Neither is Samba's implementation of SMB. NFS was developed by Sun and was originally a proprietary protocol. SMB (which started with DEC and later MS) is what Samba is based on.

    I think the biggest difference is whether the users are going to browse for ad-hoc shares. Only Samba (SMB) allows you to browse the workgroup for dynamically created shares.
    -BAB1

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Al Ain
    Beans
    7,898

    Re: NFS or SMB

    Note that MS has a free version of NFS in their Services for Unix download from MS Technet.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Beans
    371
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Re: NFS or SMB

    Quote Originally Posted by bab1 View Post
    Neither is Samba's implementation of SMB. NFS was developed by Sun and was originally a proprietary protocol. SMB (which started with DEC and later MS) is what Samba is based on.

    I think the biggest difference is whether the users are going to browse for ad-hoc shares. Only Samba (SMB) allows you to browse the workgroup for dynamically created shares.
    SO ARE YOU SAYING that in a pure Linux network that because Samba/SMB allows one to browse the workgroup dynamically (please explain what you mean by that "ad hoc"etc) SMB would be a better choice or are there other adv and disadv of one or the other?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Beans
    485
    Distro
    Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron

    Re: NFS or SMB

    Microsoft's Services for UNIX, which purportedly allows Windows machines to mount NFS shares, has been nothing short of infuriating to try to use. Configuring an XP machine to mount an NFS drive repeatedly led to an infinitie crash-reboot loop that I could only break out of by removing SFU in safe mode. That said, if you have any Windows machines at all, go with Samba.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SoCal
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: NFS or SMB

    Quote Originally Posted by measekite View Post
    SO ARE YOU SAYING that in a pure Linux network that because Samba/SMB allows one to browse the workgroup dynamically (please explain what you mean by that "ad hoc"etc) SMB would be a better choice or are there other adv and disadv of one or the other?
    The popular definition of ad hoc is "improvised or impromptu" and that is the idea I meant. It allows you to create a share on the fly by right click >>etc., etc., and someone else to browse for it and subsequently view that share. A peer to peer situation.

    With NFS you (as an administrator) need to create the shared file system and mount it to the users file system e.g., /media/nfs or some such place.

    Advantages and disadvantages are subjective in my mind. It would be best to understand (in a general way) the individual protocols capabilities.

    If I have a network where there is domain control, and users login to various hosts, I would use NFS to mount the users /home/directory. On the other hand If I have users that need to share data in a P2P situation, I would use Samba.
    -BAB1

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •