[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 6 April 2014 17:14, Simon Waters <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > For all its faults everyone I know who networks Linux/Unix boxes > seriously at the file system level uses NFS as the de-facto standard, or > more modern distributed or clustered file systems for high availability, > or clustering systems. Simon and bad should be taken as authoritative on this over anything I might say. I last worked in an all-*n*x shop (all Solaris) a long time ago, and even then file server admin was not officially part of my job. While we had NFS home directory shares that were trouble-free because they were professionally admined, for all ad-hoc stuff I found NFS so stinkingly buggy and fragile and unreliable and slow and high-maintenance and undermaintained that I would always use anything else (including netatalk, the FLOSS AppleTalk Filing System server) in preference. So it may just be outworn prejudice talking when I recommend Samba over NFS; I've never been disappointed by Samba itself (ignoring its damnable web configurator) enough to bother re-investigating NFS. And yes, I do squirm at recommending a Microsoft standard. I take comfort from the fact that the FLOSS Samba project sets the de facto standard, with MS itself now playing catch-up. Nice to see them lose in a straight fight with FLOSS. -- Phil Hudson http://hudson-it.no-ip.biz @UWascalWabbit PGP/GnuPG ID: 0x887DCA63 -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq