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 19:40:01 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-technical
mailing list