How do you share folders from one linux machine to another

[Brazen]

I want to share files from a linux file server and then mount them in a linux workstation. What is the typical protocol/method for doing this? I seem to remember hearing that NFS was the linux equivalent to SMB, but that NFS was problematic. Can anyone offer up some suggestions. Also, the files need to be secured (requiring a username/password, preferably through SSO) but the trasport does not need to be secured, ie tunneling through SSH is totally not necessary for encryption purposes.

 

[Nothinman]

NFS is crap, but it is the unix standard. The only security NFS has is that when accessing a file from the client, the UID and GIDs are sent with the request so the server can verify access. If your UIDs and GIDs aren't sync'd (or global in LDAP, NIS, etc) you won't be able to use NFS.

 

[n0cmonkey]

You could try AFS too. If it's all Linux (or plan9) take a look at v9fs.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

I run samba since my brother's windows box runs samba. Its just convenient for me.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
NFS is crap, but it is the unix standard. The only security NFS has is that when accessing a file from the client, the UID and GIDs are sent with the request so the server can verify access. If your UIDs and GIDs aren't sync'd (or global in LDAP, NIS, etc) you won't be able to use NFS.

I just have different boxes up, and this problem rears it's ugly head when I try to use NFS. I've switched to using samba, although I hear NFS is faster...

 

[Brazen]

So what I'm hearing is: smb is the best option on linux? What about rsh, I heard it can be used somehow for mounting shares, but maybe I'm mistaken, I could not find confirmation for it. Or ftp, or sftp, or ssh? Or something called "fish" or "tclvfs"?

I found "sshfs" which is a mountable filesystem using ssh. It looks good, and ssh is very reliable, but I would rather do without the encryption overhead. Maybe nfs or smb is going to be the way to go... I will keep sshfs in mind though for mounting over insecure networks...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Brazen
So what I'm hearing is: smb is the best option on linux? What about rsh, I heard it can be used somehow for mounting shares, but maybe I'm mistaken, I could not find confirmation for it. Or ftp, or sftp, or ssh? Or something called "fish" or "tclvfs"?

I found "sshfs" which is a mountable filesystem using ssh. It looks good, and ssh is very reliable, but I would rather do without the encryption overhead. Maybe nfs or smb is going to be the way to go... I will keep sshfs in mind though for mounting over insecure networks...

Any decently modern OS won't support rsh.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Brazen
So what I'm hearing is: smb is the best option on linux? What about rsh, I heard it can be used somehow for mounting shares, but maybe I'm mistaken, I could not find confirmation for it. Or ftp, or sftp, or ssh? Or something called "fish" or "tclvfs"?

I found "sshfs" which is a mountable filesystem using ssh. It looks good, and ssh is very reliable, but I would rather do without the encryption overhead. Maybe nfs or smb is going to be the way to go... I will keep sshfs in mind though for mounting over insecure networks...

Any decently modern OS won't support rsh.

ha, ok, I'll scratch that one off my list.

Also I did check out the v9fs, but is it proven to be stable and reliable? I don't care to use some niche method, I would like to know what is the most commonly used.

 

[Nothinman]

SMB does work pretty well, but everyone who access the mount point gets the same rights as whoever mounted it. And if you want it mounted automatically on bootup you need to put the username and password somewhere on the filesystem.

You might be able to get SSHFS to use a null encryption algorithm, but using something like blowfish shouldn't slow you down too much.

fish:// and ssh:// only work in Konquerer and Nautilus, respectively. They're not normal filesystem mountings.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
SMB does work pretty well, but everyone who access the mount point gets the same rights as whoever mounted it. And if you want it mounted automatically on bootup you need to put the username and password somewhere on the filesystem.

You might be able to get SSHFS to use a null encryption algorithm, but using something like blowfish shouldn't slow you down too much.

fish:// and ssh:// only work in Konquerer and Nautilus, respectively. They're not normal filesystem mountings.

Well, this will be for just my wife and I so the access limitation you mention with SMB is not a problem, but having the username and password on the filesystem is. I suppose I could just use some random password that if I hackered I'm not too concerned with falling into the wrong hangs. I suppose you couldn't have and SMB share mounted at logon and pass credentials using SSO?

Can SSHFS (or NFS for that matter) use SSO and have permissions per user, or is it subject to the same limitations as SMB?

 

[Nothinman]

Can SSHFS (or NFS for that matter) use SSO and have permissions per user, or is it subject to the same limitations as SMB?

Now that you mention it, it works the same way as SMB, you login to ssh with a specific user and then everyone on the box access the mount point as that user.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Brazen
Also I did check out the v9fs, but is it proven to be stable and reliable? I don't care to use some niche method, I would like to know what is the most commonly used.

Probably not on Linux, but probably on plan 9.

 

[Brazen]

I think since I'm not concerned with security, I'm just going to use NFS. If security every becomes a concern, I will switch to SSHFS. I found a nice primer on NFS here: http://www.linuxhomenetworking.com/wiki...mote_Disk_Access_with_NFS#Introduction