[Samba] Is Samba useful in an all-Linux environment?

[Ty! Boyack]

On 08/17/2009 04:25 PM, Henrik Dige Semark wrote:
> Steve Litt skrev:
>> On Monday 17 August 2009 15:55:34 John Drescher wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Eero 
>>> Volotinen<eero.volotinen at iki.fi> wrote:
>>>> Steve Litt kirjoitti:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't meant to be a troll. It's a legitimate question asked 
>>>>> because
>>>>> I haven't done much with Samba for 9 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there anything Samba can contribute to an all-Linux environment 
>>>>> with
>>>>> no Windows or Mac computers?
>>>> Well, atleast it is more secure than nfsv3 ?
>>> That along with better performance and also better handling of
>>> disconnections are a couple of reasons to use samba/cifs over nfs3.
>>
>> How about performance and security of Samba vs. NFS4 on an all Linux 
>> network?
> Samba is definitely more secure then NFS but performance wise it is 
> definitely my expiration that NFS is much fasten with small files, but 
> about the same on big files.

(I'm not trying to inflame on a thread that is not trying to troll, but...)

I'd like to see some backing that Samba is more secure than NFS -- I 
don't think that it's black-and-white enough for a blanket statement of 
that sort.  I will certainly grant that many common configurations of 
NFS have security issues, but with the ability to run NFS in kerberized 
modes I would think that it has a very similar security model to 
Samba+ADS.  And more secure than Samba with other security models like 
user or share, I believe.  I don't think there is a significant 
difference in the quality of software (both Samba and NFS are well 
written pieces of code), but configurations can vary greatly.

Samba does provide some very useful functionality to an all Linux 
environment in that a user can take a stock linux box that knows nothing 
of your local network setups and connect to a Samba share.  It requires 
very little training since users already are aware of this from the 
Windows world.  If ease of support of unsecured clients is a primary 
concern, Samba would be a good choice.  If you have full control over 
the clients, NFS can work without any user intervention.  This has it's 
own support benefit, but you need to ensure that client security is 
taken care of as well.

Samba allows an extra layer of configuration via smb.conf that can help 
with sharing and access controls, but it can also add a layer of 
confusion if used improperly.  Also, you have to enable special Samba 
extensions to get full support for things that come native to NFS -- 
full permission support, symbolic links, hard links, special 
devices/fifos.  If your applications need these things, then you are 
likely better off using NFS.  (And as noted by the earlier posters -- if 
you use NFS, you'll find better utility from NFSv4 than NFSv3).

There are certainly trade offs, but yes, I can see a reason to implement 
samba in an all Linux environment if it is the right choice for your 
user base/application needs.

-Ty!



-- 
-===========================-
   Ty! Boyack
   NREL Unix Network Manager
   ty at nrel.colostate.edu
   (970) 491-1186
-===========================-