[Samba] Always use the native protocol of the client -- WAS: How Samba let us down

Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith at ieee.org
Wed Oct 23 19:41:26 GMT 2002

Quoting Jay Ts <jay at jayts.cx>:
> My experience here is that smbfs isn't perfect, but works pretty
> well, and I *really* like it!  Without smbfs, I end up having to
> run to the Windows system to transfer files. (Sorry, but smbclient
> just doesn't "do it" for me. It works, but is really inconvenient.)

Production networks should use NFS for UNIX clients.  NFS peacefully co-exists
with Samba just fine.  I have been using it on both Solaris and Linux for over 6
years.  Of course, I have always supported production engineering environments
-- and need network filesystem access to be a little more "mission critical"
than something for just "basic file transfers."

Which brings me to my "rule of thumb" ...
_Always_ use the native protocol of the client.

For a UNIX client, use NFS.  Otherwise expect case and codepage issues (let
alone it makes it much nicer for home directory mounts and the automounter ;-).

For a Windows client, use SMB.  Otherwise expect Windows fits.  ;-P

For a [pre-X] Mac client, use Ethertalk.  Otherwise expect special file fits.

And so forth ...

If your server platform doesn't have a service that supports a protocol (or does
a poor job *COUGH*NFS on NT*COUGH*), don't use that platform as a server.  ;-P

-- Bryan

P.S.  Please no "NFS is insecure" comments being that CIFS "password equivalent"
exchange is just as bad.  ;-P

P.P.S.  With that said, Kerberos+OpenAFS is always a nice "universal" network
filesystem as well.

Bryan J. Smith, E.I.            Contact Info:  http://thebs.org
A+/i-Net+/Linux+/Network+/Server+ CCNA CIWA CNA SCSA/SCWSE/SCNA
           limit      guilt   =     { psychopath,
         remorse->0                    innocent }

More information about the samba mailing list