Em Ter, 2005-11-15 às 23:50 +0000, Clive Menzies escreveu: > On (15/11/05 16:26), Joseph H. Fry wrote: > > On Tuesday 15 November 2005 12:01 pm, Tony Heal wrote: > > > couple of questions for those more in the know than me. [which probably > > > means everybody. :) ] > > > > > > I am running Debian/sarge > > > > > > What are the various ways to mount a remote directory for seamless use by > > > a > > > service running on a parent server? > > > > > > I only know nfs. Is this the best way? Is this the most secure? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Tony Heal > > > Pace Systems Group, Inc. > > > 800-624-5999 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/stirling/computergeek/lufs.html > > > > Probably more secure implementation than NFS, especially if the remote > > filesystem is only excessable via a public network (the internet). > > However > > NFS is by far the most documented and thus supported method for this. Oh > > and > > there is smbfs to mount MS file systems, but I don't really recommend it > > unless it's the only way (IE you need to mount a windows share). > > We have Linux, Windows and OSX clients and initially used both NFS and > Samba. However, there were three reasons we decided to standardise all > clients on Samba: > NFS is allegedly less secure
I think you got that one wrong: Neither NFS nor SMB is secure. > To make it more secure an option is to authenticate with IP address but > it's not very easy to manage unless you use fixed IP addresses which for > other reasons is not necessarily convenient; I can't find any reason for not using fixed IPs. (DHCP served fixed IPs) > we use dhcp So do we. And each MAC is assigned a fixed IP, visitor's laptop use non-fixed IPs and of course are not trusted for NFS. > Simplicity, ie. managing one networking environment as opposed to two. > That's a good point. Michel.